Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Dougherty Rd Improvementsor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL February 19, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' CITY CLERK File #600 -35 SUBJECT: Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve Preliminary Engineering Plans for the Dougherty Road Improvements Project Prepared by Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of preliminary engineering plans for the Dougherty Road Improvements project from Sierra Lane to North City Limit (the Project). City consultants have completed the preliminary engineering plans and prepared the Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which was noticed and circulated for a 30 -day public review period, from November 5, 2012 to December 5, 2012. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the preliminary engineering plans would allow the Project to move forward to subsequent stages; right -of -way engineering, appraisal for necessary property acquisition and environmental permitting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the preliminary engineering plans. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt the Resolution that both Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approves Preliminary Engineering Plans for the Dougherty Road Improvements Project. ubmitte` By Public Works Director DESCRIPTION: Proiect Background � '\ Reviewed By Economic Development Director/ Public Information Officer The City has long planned for improvements to Dougherty Road. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan (adopted in 1985) called for the expansion of Dougherty Road to a six -lane Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.1 arterial. Subsequent updates to the Circulation Element called for the addition of on- street ( "Class II ") bicycle lanes to the entire length of Dougherty Road. Since adopting the Circulation Element, the City has enforced a dedication requirement from property owners along Dougherty Road to provide the necessary area for the anticipated future roadway width. As development has occurred along the Dougherty Road corridor, the City has required new buildings and parking areas to be sufficiently set back from the existing roadway to allow for the planned widening. Previously, the City improved the southern portion of the roadway (south of Sierra Lane) to a divided multiple -lane facility. However, the portion of Dougherty Road between Sierra Lane and the City limits to the north has generally remained four lanes with no median or on- street bicycle lanes provided. In its most recently adopted Capital Improvement Program, the City has included funding for preliminary engineering and environmental review for the Dougherty Road Improvements Project. The City hired Kimley -Horn & Associates to prepare preliminary engineering plans and conduct the appropriate level of environmental review. Council's consideration of the resulting environmental review and preliminary engineering plans are the subject of this Council item. Proposed Project Consistent with the Circulation Element, the Dougherty Road Improvements Project will improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along a 1.9 -mile long section of Dougherty Road, from Sierra Lane north to the City limit line. Roadway and median conforms will extend approximately 800 - feet north into the City of San Ramon. The preliminary engineering plans widen the roadway from a four -lane facility to a six -lane divided roadway, with a raised landscaped median that will also serve as a stormwater collection and retention facility. The project will add left -turn pockets at several intersections. Project improvements also include adding Class II bicycle lanes on both north and south -bound sides of the road, transit stops at several key locations, and reconstructing or resurfacing the existing 8' -wide bicycle /pedestrian path on the east side of the roadway. These improvements will require the removal of about six on- street parking spaces between Sierra Lane and Houston Place. These spaces are located along the eastern (northbound) side of Dougherty Road, within the existing public right -of -way. The project will require the acquisition of approximately 9,865 square feet of right -of -way in front of a single commercial property located at 6305 Dougherty Road to accommodate the roadway widening project. Approval of the preliminary engineering plans and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would allow the project to move forward to subsequent stages; right -of- way engineering, appraisal for necessary property acquisition, and environmental permitting. Staff anticipates that some minor refinements to these preliminary plans may be necessary as construction -level plans are prepared in a subsequent project phase. Public Outreach On October 12, 2012, Staff convened an informational meeting targeted to the businesses and property owners in the southern reach of Dougherty Road — between Sierra Lane and Scarlett Court. Staff sent out approximately 90 written invitations to the meeting and followed up by telephone with some who could not attend but wanted to learn more about the project. As part of this outreach, Staff heard comments and questions regarding the property acquisition process, loss of parking both on and off - street, and traffic movement through the area. Staff received only one written comment at this meeting. The comment called for the City to complete a business impact report in addition to the environmental review of the project. Page 2 of 4 At the meeting, Staff responded to queries about property acquisition and traffic movement and further advised that questions about parking loss would be addressed in the environmental document. Staff also advised participants to look out for the environmental document and staff explained how to submit comments on that document. With regard to the request from a participant to study business impacts, there is no regulation at the local or state level that requires such effort and that project circumstances do not warrant any heightened level of analysis. The City had first adopted the plan to expand Dougherty Road more than two decades ago in the Circulation Element. Since that time, Staff has consistently advised potentially affected property owners of the pending expansion. For example, a 1989 Staff approval of a sign on the property located at 6305 Dougherty Road included a note that the sign was in the future expansion area for Dougherty Road and was likely to be acquired. Newer developments along Dougherty Road were approved when set back a sufficient distance so as to allow for the future widening of Dougherty Road without affecting buildings, structures, signs, or other similar physical improvements. Given the lack of any statutory imperative, the small number of properties potentially affected by the need for property acquisition, the minimal reduction in the loss of available parking in the area, and more than two decades having passed since the City first stated its intent to widen Dougherty Road, Staff does not see any justification or need to complete a business impact report. Environmental Review — Mitigated Negative Declaration Although the City's Circulation Element included a conceptual plan to expand Dougherty Road to six lanes in this area, Staff prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA to examine whether the project could result in a significant environmental impact. The Initial Study, which relied upon and incorporated several focused studies (air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, noise, and others) found that with the application of standard mitigation measures, no significant environmental effects would occur. Accordingly, Staff has prepared a mitigated negative declaration for the Project. Staff noticed and circulated the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 30 -day public review period which occurred from November 5, 2012 to December 5, 2012. In noticing the document, Staff exceeded the noticing requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Specifically, Staff mailed or hand - delivered more than 900 notices of the availability of the initial study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to property owners along the project area corridor. Staff also published a notice in the Tri- Valley Times on November 8, 2012. Both notices invited interested members of the community to comment on the proposed mitigated negative declaration and also advised the public of an "open house" community meeting the City convened on November 14, 2012 at the Dublin Library. This is in addition to the informational meeting held in October 2012 for business and property owners along the southern reach of Dougherty Road (Sierra Lane to Scarlett Court). During the public comment period, Staff received a total of four written comments on the environmental document. None of the comments identified any new or substantially more adverse environmental effects than had been noted in the environmental document. Although not required by CEQA, Staff prepared responses to the written comments. Staff also made minor revisions to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including some of the mitigation measures, in accordance with the commenters' suggestions. In particular, some of the biology mitigations were revised to clarify permitting and timing provisions, and to provide additional detail updating referenced California Department of Fish and Wildlife mitigation protocols. Staff carefully reviewed the comments and responses and determined that no recirculation is required under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5, and that the modifications to Page 3 of 4 the mitigations are not substituted mitigations for the purposes of CEQA Guidelines section 15074.1. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt the Resolution that both Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approves Preliminary Engineering Plans for the Dougherty Road Improvements Project. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: As mentioned above, more than 900 notices were mailed and /or hand delivered to businesses, property owners and apartment tenants inviting them to two public meetings conducted in October and November 2012, and a similar notice was also published in the Tri- Valley Times on November 8, 2012 for the November Open House and for the Mitigated Negative Declaration public comment period. In addition, the City Council Agenda was mailed to those who provided written comments notifying them of the scheduled Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Preliminary Engineering Plans for the Dougherty Road Improvements Project 2. Project Location Map 3. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendices Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THE DOUGHERTY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan has for more than two decades called for the expansion of Dougherty Road to a six -lane arterial; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin's Bikeways Master Plan calls for the addition of on- street (Class 11) bike lanes on Dougherty Road from the Contra Costa County line south to Dublin Boulevard; and WHEREAS, through previously approved Capital Improvements Program, the City has designated funding for preliminary engineering and environmental review of plans to expand Dougherty Road consistent with the Circulation Element, WHEREAS, preliminary engineering of Dougherty Road improvements consistent with the above plans has proceeded for the section of Dougherty Road between Sierra Lane and the north City limit, including proposed roadway, median, and bicycle /pedestrian path improvements; and WHEREAS, consistent with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City prepared and circulated an environmental Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Dougherty Road Improvements Project for a 30 day public review period; and WHEREAS, during the public review period, the City received four written comments on the project and the environmental review, none of which identify any new or significantly worsened environmental impacts beyond those already identified; and WHEREAS, although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the comments, which comments and responses are included in a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) dated February, 2013 and incorporated herein by reference. The MND includes a revised Initial Study reflecting the comments and responses and including minor technical revisions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the comments and responses, the revised Initial Study also includes modifications to certain biology mitigation measures, These modifications refine and clarify permitting and timing provisions of the measures and provide additional detail to update the measures for current CDFW protocols. Mitigation Measure 1310 -5 in the revised Initial Study replaces the prior measure but does not constitute a "substitute" measure for the purposes of CEQA Guidelines section 15074.1 because the revised measure contains the basic elements of the original measure, and adds detail consistent with current CDFW standards; and WHEREAS, all mitigation measures have been compiled in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January 2013 and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City determined that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the MND, and no recirculation was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, the Revised Initial Study, the comments received during the public review period, the City's responses to the comments as compiled in the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration dated February 2013, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January 2013 collectively comprise the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, the preliminary engineering plans were developed in a manner consistent with the City's Circulation Element, Capital Improvement Program and Bikeways Master Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed a Staff Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at their meeting on February 19, 2013 prior to taking action on the project; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the project is the Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568 Attn: Ferd Del Rosario. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Revised Initial Study, comments and responses) that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after reviewing and considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the preliminary engineering plans, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) for the Dougherty Road Improvements Project and approves the preliminary engineering plans. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES- NOES- ABSENT- ABSTAIN- ATTEST- City Clerk 2047543.1 Mayor Dougherty Road Improvements Project Legend aProject Location Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, 2012. 0 2 4 MILES Scale: 1:200,000 Project Location PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dougherty Road Improvements Prepared for r, City of Dublin February 2013 To conserve resources this document was printed on 100% recycled paper. CO Please recycle! I I, I i f , i , ,, l S �, - ci Y ),o[,�gheily R',oaci Irr1rarrrft� "rr1� rift Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................ ............................... iii SECTION 1— Individual Comment Letters and Responses ............................... ............................... iv SECTION 2 — Revised Initial Study ................................................................... ..............................1 ProjectDescription ........................................................................................ ..............................1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................... ..............................4 Determination.............................................................................................. ............................... 6 Environmental Impact Checklist ..................................................................... ..............................7 I. Aesthetics .................................................................................................. ..............................7 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................... ..............................9 III. Air Quality .............................................................................................. .............................13 IV. Biological Resources ................................................................................ .............................23 V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................... .............................39 VI. Geology and Soils .................................................................................... .............................45 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................... .............................53 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. .............................56 X. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. .............................63 XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................... .............................67 XII. Noise ................................................................................................... ............................... 69 XIII. Population and Housing ......................................................................... .............................74 XIV. Public Services .................................................................................... ............................... 77 XV. Recreation ........................................................................................... ............................... 79 XVI. Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................... .............................81 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................ .............................89 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................... .............................93 S (':iY Tables Table 1. Construction Period Emissions ............................................................................ .............................17 Table 2. Daily Air Pollutant Emission Changes from Operation of the Project (pounds /day) ...............18 Table 3. Annual Air Pollutant Emission Changes from Operation of the Project (tons /year) ...............19 Table 4. Annual Project GHG Emissions ........................................................................... .............................50 Table 5. Long Term Noise Measurement Results ............................................................ .............................70 Table 6. Short Term Noise Measurement Results .......................................................... .............................71 Table 7. Summary of Intersection Level of Service Calculations ................................... .............................85 Figures Figure 1. Project Location Figure 2. Project Study Area Figure 3. City of Dublin Zoning Map Figure 4. City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Map Figure 5. Typical Schematic Cross Sections: Dougherty Road from Sierra Lane to Scarlett Drive Figure 6. Typical Schematic Cross - Sections: Dougherty Road from Scarlett Drive to Amador Valley Boulevard Figure 7. Typical Schematic Cross Sections: Dougherty Road from Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits Figure 8. Typical Median Landscape Plan Figure 9. Median Concept: Sections Figure 10. Project Vicinity and Noise Measurement /Modeling Locations Appendices Appendix A Plan and Profile Drawings Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment Appendix C Biological Study Appendix D Cultural Resources Evaluation Appendix E Geologic Evaluation Report Appendix F Initial Site Assessment Appendix G Water Quality Report Appendix H Location Hydraulic Study Appendix I Noise Assessment Appendix J Traffic Impact Study llf l',, :Sf,_�('m:i ),o[,i ,heil,y F,',rr ,,(m:i Y1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Yif� INTRODUCTION The City of Dublin released an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 5, 2012, which analyzed potential impacts of the proposed Dougherty Road Improvements Project (the project). The release of the document initiated a public comment period, which ran from November 5, 2012 through December 5, 2012. In publishing the document, the City exceeded the noticing requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Specifically, the City mailed or hand - delivered notice of the proposed mitigated negative declaration to property owners along the project area corridor. The City also published a similar notice in the Tri- Valley Herald on November 8, 2012. Both notices invited interested members of the community to comment on the proposed mitigated negative declaration and also advised the public of an "open house" community meeting the City convened on November 14, 2012. During the public comment period, the City received 3 written comments regarding the environmental review of the project. This updated document includes the following sections: Section 1 (page v) A copy of each written comment received, and individual responses to each substantive issue raised. Section 2 (page 1) A revised initial study, including edits and corrections made in response to comments received on the draft initial study. In the revised initial study, any added text is shown is presented in bold underlined italic text. Deleted text is shown in #r 4 COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL STUDY /PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Letter 1: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region Letter 2: California Department of Transportation, District 4 Letter 3: Dan Rodrigues Letter 4: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit llfl',, :Sf,_�('m:i o[t ,heil,y R', r,(`m4 YY1C.tYr�l4 YY1� Yif� �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. iv Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements SECTION 1 - INDIVIDUAL COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES December 4, 2012 Mr. Ferd Del Rosario, City of Dublin 100 Cfivi Ipl aza Dublin, CA 94568 C Mr. Del Rosario. Subject: Dougherty Road improvements, Initial StUdy/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #20121120,19, City of Dublin, Alameda County ("al- -ortria'S 'Wihffij-i� 'inc e 1870 Mr. Ferd Del Rosario Decernber 4, 2012 Page 2 Mitigation, approved by DFG, shOLfld be of sufficient qUafity and qUantity to offset the ifflpacts, For examp�e, SL)itaNe [-iabitat COWd be peni'mnenfly conserved through the L1-1 cont. purchase of fee title or conservation easement, irnplea entaflon of DFG-approved managernent plans, aind sufficient in-perpetUity fi,inding for rnanagement, as determined by DF'G-appiroved Property Analysis Records,. "The indirect effects of the road expansion hav(-**^ not Ibeearn addressed. Habitat fragrYlEmtation is cfted as an prirnary reason for decline in an rIUmber of species of cc irncern which are known to occur in the project area. Mortality frorn vehicle strikes may' increase as an resuft of arore and faster traffic. Sedous consideration smood also be given to the curb arid gutter installation. 'These design featUres are particularly detrirnental to CaNfornia tiger salarnanders which become trapped on the road or are washed down storn"i dra4is. 'The City ShOLAId design the road to rninirnize the impacts to the dispersal of speciai-status species and ShOWd require acqUISition of property which contributes to preservation of corridors for known populations of the species that WH be impacted by the proJect. 'The MND incorrectly references the Burr wire Owl Protocol Survey and Mitigation Guidelines as ar DFG docurnent, T'he DFG Staff Report on Burrow� n g Owl Mitigation, March 7, 2012 replaces the 1995 DFG Staff [� eport on BUrroWng Owl Mitigation, -niis revised Staff Report to into account the California Burrowing Owl ConsortiLHTI'S SUrvey Protoco and Mitigation GUidefties (CBOC 1993, 1997) arid SUpersedes the SUrvey, avoidance, rninlry0zation and rnifigation recornffiendations in the '1995 Staff Repo ft. '"ll"he buirrowing owl has been iderrtffied as a State Species of Special Concern becaUyea of declines Of SUitable h,-,.iNtat and both localized and statewide population decfines,. GLJidefirnes for the irnplementation of CE QA provide that the species be considered endangered or "rare" for the purposes of C A (Guide lime s, Section 15380). CE(DA requires an rimndatory finding of significance if irnpacts to irare, threatened, or endangered species are HkOy to occur. T'o be legaHy adequate, rnifigation rneasures PlUst be capable of 'lavoiding the irnpact altog(ather by not taking certain action or parts of an action," I'minimiAng irripacts by firnifing the degree of rnagrritude of the action or its "rectifying the irnpact by repairirq, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted eirivironment," "redw-Ang or elirninating the irripact over tirne by preservation arid maintenance operations dUring the life of the acdon," or "corriipensating for the ii,yipacts by replacing or providing substitute reSOUrces." K bUrrowing oWs are obSEnrved during surveys, or have been documEmted breedi'ng on the site within the last three years, the extent of burrowing owi habitat on the sfte should be (JeHneated by a qUaHfied ornithologist, A 1,1 replacement ratio is recoarmerided to off-set per"marient irnpactsto burr wimp owl habitat. Land identified to off-set irripacts to burrowing owls shOWd be protected in PEnrpetuity either, by an conservation easernent or fee fifle acquisition. Burrowlng owl rnifigcition lands shoWd be idendfied in the vicinity of the project site, If it is determined that burrowing owlls occur at the project site, a burrowing oW habitat a,flfigation plan should be prepcired airid be subJect to review and approval of DFG. An agreement that WH bind the applicant to the conditions should be reqUired. No evictions or L1-2 L1-3 L1-4 Mr. Ferd Del Rosario December 4, 2012 Page 3 destruction of habitat should be allowed until the mitigation plan has been finalized and a binding agreement executed. Mitigation to avoid "take" of burrowing owls and their nests is fulfilled by conducting pre- construction surveys for the species no more than 30 days prior to construction. Sites found to have burrowing owls present during the pre-construction survey will have a biological monitor present during site disturbance. Pre-construction survey results should be submitted to DFG for review and approval. We are further available to discuss Our concerns, if requested. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Marcia Grefsrud, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 644-2812; or Mr. Craig Weightman, Acting Environmental Program Manager, at (707) 944-557T cc: State Clearinghouse L14 cont. Comment Letter 1: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)1 1.1 The commenter notes that construction activities will occur within area designated as suitable habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma coliforniense or CTS), a federal and state - listed threatened species, and that additional mitigation is needed to mitigate for the project's use of such habitat area. The initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration noted that the quality of habitat was not the highest quality given surrounding development and did not include any area that would be considered suitable for breeding habitat. Nevertheless, because of the potential for the species to use portions of the site (specifically, aestivation or summer hibernation, within existing burrow areas), the initial study set forth Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -3. These include several precautionary measures intended to avoid direct impact to CTS by excluding the species from the project construction area. In subsequent personal communication, CDFW Environmental Scientist Marcia Grefsrud clarified that the CDFW accepts only one methodology to confirm the absence of CTS in an area that has suitable upland habitat. This method involves a series of surveys (known as "pitfall trap surveys "). Such surveys are conducted within a selected area over an approximately 24 month period and include special protocols during rain events, when salamanders are most likely to be active and mobile. As CTS generally live underground, fencing off an area may preclude new CTS from entering, but others may yet emerge from underground, even after an area is cordoned off. Therefore, only after the completion of pitfall trap surveys might CDFW accept a conclusion that a given area is absent of CTS. The City does not propose to conduct these surveys to establish absence. Rather, the City here adds provisions to Mitigation Measure BIO -3, including an application to the CDFW for an incidental take permit (ITP). Such permits are used in the anticipation that during the construction period, one or more CTS may emerge from underground or otherwise enter the construction area and be subjected to relocation, capture, or mortality. Prior to applying for the ITP, the City anticipates completing more detailed design drawings for the project and will, as feasible, modify the project to reduce environmental effects disclosed in the initial study /proposed mitigated negative declaration. 1 As of January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game officially changed its name to California Department of Fish and Wildlife and is referenced in this document as California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). <http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov /about /namechange.html> Accessed January 3, 2012. «III In the ITP, CDFW will stipulate measures specific to site conditions, likely echoing the enhanced avoidance measures set forth in Mitigation Measure 11310 -3. Following assessment of the quality of the affected habitat, CDFW will determine whether any other compensatory measures are required, potentially including the purchase of credits at a qualifying mitigation bank. Revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO -3 are shown below (with new information in bold, italic, underlined text, and deleted information in ��.�,- rleeRt) Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Pre - Construction Activities • Prior to the initiation of construction, the City shall obtain an incidental take permit (ITP) from the CDFW. Any additional conditions set forth in the ITP to avoid or minimize impacts to CTS shall be incorporated into the project. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey in the immediate area of construction and where equipment will be located and construction activities will occur be Ilereated. "Y..,FFeetive ,.,,rvey icnay Fequ*r„ buFFew ,.eepiRg. Pre - construction survey methodology will conform to that specified in the above - referenced ITP. • An environmentally sensitive area (ESA) and exclusion zone shall be established around the freshwater marssh on -site by a qualified biologist. The ESA and exclusion zone shall be fenced with erosion control fencing (in a manner consistent with Mitigation Measure 13I0-1) and marked with high visibility fencing. The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site the aquatic feature (wet or dry). • Prior to initiating project construction activities, the City shall install temporary exclusion fencing between the project area and habitat in Camp Parks. The City shall coordinate with Camp Parks to install permanent exclusion fencing on the existing fence between Camp Parks and Dougherty Road, as feasible. Permanent exclusion fencing would be installed at the completion of construction activities, or temporary exclusion fencing would be made permanent. Activities During Construction • A qualified biologist shall be present for initial ground- disturbing activities. The biologist shall have the authority to stop any work that may result in impacts to CTS. If the biologist exercises this authority, the USFWS and the CDF4W shall be notified by telephone and electronic mail within 2 working days. • If CTS are encountered in the project area, work within the immediate vicinity shall cease immediately and the City shall engage a qualified biologist pessessmg a aliel «" -Rased- ,,,, the prefessi Ral ;,,d,.,,. eRt of the biologist to determine if project activities can be conducted without harming or injuring the CTS, in which case the individual(s) shall be left at the location of discovery and monitored by the biologist. All project personnel shall be notified of the finding and at no time will work occur within the vicinity of the listed species without a biological monitor present. USFWS and CDFW shall be notified and determination shall be made as to the method of relocation, if necessary. At no time shall CTS be handled without an ITP from CDFW. If it L; llfl',, I S'i (':iY D'ol"igh '11'y F"'o"(`m4 YY11.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� • No monofilament plastic shall be used for erosion control. • Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches each morning and evening of construction for trapped CTS. • To control erosion during and after project implementation, the construction contractor will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).2 • Work will be avoided within suitable habitat during the rainy season as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS 2010), from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1 inch or greater) to May 1, or as otherwise determined in the ITP. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BI0-3 would reduce potential impacts to the California tiger salamander to a less- than - significant level. 1.2 The commenter states that the expanded width of the Dougherty Road paved area may encourage CTS to enter the roadway and face an increased mortality risk from vehicle strikes. In subsequent personal communication, CDFW Environmental Scientist Marcia Grefsrud clarified that project design, particularly along the eastern edge of Dougherty Road, should, to the extent feasible, preclude /discourage CTS from entering the roadway. To this end, the City adds the (previously noted) provision to Mitigation Measure 11310 -3. Prior to initiating project construction activities, the City shall install temporary exclusion fencing between the project area and habitat in Camp Parks. The City shall coordinate with Camp Parks to install permanent exclusion fencing on the existing fence between Camp Parks and Dougherty Road, as feasible. Permanent exclusion fencing would be installed at the completion of construction activities, or temporary exclusion fencing would be made permanent. 1.3 The commenter states that the Biological Evaluation included with the proposed mitigated negative declaration utilized out -of date, superceded protocols for the avoidance and minimization of impacts to California Burrowing Owl. As further detailed in the response to Comment 1.4 below, the City has updated the initial study /proposed 2 As discussed in section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, Best Management Practices are included in the City of Dublin's NPDES permit. 1lf l'TI `: ,f ,(:iY o[1 gheil'y l,oa,(:4 YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� mitigated negative declaration to reflect burrowing owl protocols and processes from the March 7, 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 1.4 Related to Comment 1.3 above, the commenter notes that additional mitigation should be added to ensure consistency with the CDFW's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Accordingly, the City has replaced the entirety of Mitigation Measure 1131O -5 with the new text shown below. Mitigation Measure BI0-5: The City will implement measures outlined in the CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012), along with informal consultation with CDFW, to determine potential effects of the proposed project and the required mitigation. As a habitat assessment has identified potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat within the protect site (GANDA 2012), prior to protect initiation occupancy surveys — as defined in CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) — shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If burrowing owls are found to occupy burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, avoidance and minimization measures will be determined in consultation with CDFW and may include. • An impact assessment by a qualified biologist to determine all factors that could affect burrowing owls, including type and extent of disturbance, duration and timing of impact, visibility and sensitivity, environmental factors, significance of impacts, cumulative effects, and mitigation goals. • A burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan, based on the results of the impact assessment, in consultation with and subject to review and approval by CDFW. llf l',, :Sf'- �('m:i 'o[-i h '11'y F"'.rr "(`m4 YY1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Yif� • Pre - construction surveys by a qualified biologist of areas within 150 meters (about 492 feet) of the project study area to begin no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities to avoid "take" of burrowing owls and their nests. Pre - construction survey results should be submitted to CDFW for review and approval. • Monitoring by a qualified biologist during site disturbance to prevent impacts to burrowing owls identified during pre- construction surveys. • Establishing buffer zones, visual screens, or other measures during project activities to minimize disturbance impacts to nesting sites. Limits of buffers zone must be clearly marked with signs, flagging, or fencing. Appropriate buffer zones would be determined in consultation with CDFW. Restricted activity dates and buffer zones recommended in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) include: Source: CDFW, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012 • Compensatory mitiaation throuah the purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank, based on habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owls impacted, in areas where buffer zones are not practicable -- particularly due to access restrictions associated with the proximity of PRFTA —for temporary and /or permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, burrowing owl habitat. Mitigation would be determined in consultation with CDFW. • Burrow exclusion, during the non - breeding season to permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows, for areas that may be permanently impacted by the proposed project. Burrow exclusion and /or closure would be conducted under a CDFW burrowing owl exclusion plan. • Site surveillance by a qualified biologist during project activities to detect burrowing owls that attempt to colonize or re- colonize an area that will be impacted. • Restoration of temporary habitat impacts within the proposed project area to pre - project conditions. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures B10 -1 and B10 -5 would reduce potential project impacts to the burrowing owl to a less- than - significant level. llf l',, :Sf,_�('m:i ),o[,i ,heil,y F,',rr ,,(m:i Y1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� Level of Disturbance Low Medium High Time of Year 200 meters 500 meters 500 meters April 1 -Aug 15 (about 656 feet) (about 1640 feet) (about 1640 feet) 200 meters 200 meters 500 meters Aug 16 -Oct 15 (about 656 feet) (about 656 feet) (about 1640 feet) 50 meters 100 meters 500 meters Oct 16 -Mar 31 (about 164 feet) (about 328 feet) (about 1640 feet) Source: CDFW, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012 • Compensatory mitiaation throuah the purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank, based on habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owls impacted, in areas where buffer zones are not practicable -- particularly due to access restrictions associated with the proximity of PRFTA —for temporary and /or permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, burrowing owl habitat. Mitigation would be determined in consultation with CDFW. • Burrow exclusion, during the non - breeding season to permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows, for areas that may be permanently impacted by the proposed project. Burrow exclusion and /or closure would be conducted under a CDFW burrowing owl exclusion plan. • Site surveillance by a qualified biologist during project activities to detect burrowing owls that attempt to colonize or re- colonize an area that will be impacted. • Restoration of temporary habitat impacts within the proposed project area to pre - project conditions. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures B10 -1 and B10 -5 would reduce potential project impacts to the burrowing owl to a less- than - significant level. llf l',, :Sf,_�('m:i ),o[,i ,heil,y F,',rr ,,(m:i Y1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� STATE OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS, TRANTSPORTA PION AND H01iSINCI A(IF,LTC Y EDI+R ND G. BROWN Jr.. Govemar DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Ill GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -6053 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 December 4, 2012 Mr. Ferd Del Rosario City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Ferd Del Rosario: Dougherty Road Improvements -- Mitigated Negative Declaration Letter 2 A Flea your power! Be energy e fficien tl ALA580�}865�] ALA - 580 -19.85 SCH42012112019 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Dougherty Road Improvements project. The following comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The proposed project would add capacity to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on Dougherty Road north of Interstate 580. However, the MND did not discuss the impacts of these improvements to I- 580/Hopyard- Dougherty Road interchange overcrossing. Please discuss how L2 -1 these improvements connect to existing roadway configuration at the interchange including mitigation measures for the safety of bicyclist and pedestrians. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please tali Yatman Kwan, AICP of my staff at (510) 622 -1670. Sincerely, ERIK ALM, AICP District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Comment Letter 2: California Department of Transportation 2.1 The commenter states that the proposed project would add capacity to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and should therefore consider impacts of increased bicycle and pedestrian usage to the 1- 580 /Hopyard- Dougherty Road Interchange overcrossing. This overcrossing is well outside the project study area. Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the study corridor consist of a mixed bicycle and pedestrian path along the east side of Dougherty Road and a sidewalk along the west side of Dougherty Road. The project would make improvements to the existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through improving the existing bicycle and pedestrian path and adding Class II bicycle lanes in both travel directions. There is no evidence that the mere expansion of bicycle facilities (the addition of on- street lanes) would necessarily result in any significant increase in bicycle traffic, particularly for locations outside the study area, including the referenced overcrossing. The project does not add any new residential or commercial space, and therefore would not itself foreseeably introduce any significant number of new bicycle riders to the project area. The addition of the Class II lanes would merely serve to better accommodate existing bicycle riders. As an aside, the City understands the larger need for bicycle facilities across 1 -580 to Pleasanton. The Dublin Bikeways Master Plan (2007) recommends a crossing study at the 1- 580 /Hopyard- Dougherty Road intersection that would connect the Class 11 lanes on Dougherty Road to the Class 11 lanes on Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. In the future, the City of Dublin will collaborate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to come up with recommendations for additional bikeways crossing 1 -580 at the Hopya rd- Dougherty Road interchange. x i Dougherty Road Improvements Open House `�.� ;�i� j Letter 3 Dublin Library— Community Room = ALAMEDA CITY or DUBLIN November 14, 2012 7:00 — 8:00 p.m. COMMENT FORM Please submit written comments today, by mail or by e-mail to: City of Dublin Dougherty Road Improvements Attn: Ferd Del Rosario 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Ferd.delrosario@dublin.ca.gov Name: ,)A-A) Address: Phone: E -mail: Please provide written comments regarding any questions or concerns you may have about the Dougherty Road Improvement Project by 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 2012. TIZ p xl&� <u� — 0 '4 ewlel 94_� Please use the reverse side or attach any additional pages L3 -1 Comment Letter 3: Dan Rodrigues 3.1 The commenter states that the preliminary plans look good and notes his desire for the project to provide a better, smoother road than what currently exists. The commenter suggests using Hopyard Road in Pleasanton as an example. The comment is noted. The comment does not raise any issue regarding a significant environmental effect of the project. Please also refer to page 9 of the Initial Study /proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for history and background on the development of the Dougherty Road Improvements project. v: 5fp „pF,sTk . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ° Governor's Office of Planning and Research -0L! =UPK State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor December 5, 2012 Ferd Del Rosario City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject- Dougherty Road Improvements SCH #: 2012112019 Dear Ferd Del Rosario: Letter 4yFE,GE °���”, o � � �l��E OF rnLiF4Pa`P Ken Alex Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 4, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ics) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied -,vith the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerel Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812 -3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(91G)S23-3018 ww w.opr- ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2012112019 Project Title Dougherty Road Improvements Lead Agency Dublin, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The City of Dublin proposes multi -modal improvements to Dougherty Road, including new and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, now bus stops and bus pull -outs, and roadway widening. These improvements will address traffic congestion and multi -modal circulation issues for commuters traveling Dougherty Road, including improved access to the Dublin /Pleasanton BART station. - -- --Improvements-will-include adding -Class-11-bicycle lanes-on both-directions of_travel,_and.reconstructing or resurfacing the existing 8' -wide bicycle and pedestrian path on the east side of the roadway. The project will also widen the roadway from a four -lane facility into a six -lane divided roadway, with a raised landscaped median in the middle of roadway, including left -turn pockets as well as modify traffic signals to match the new roadway geometry. Lead Agency Contact Name Ferd Del Rosario Agency City of Dublin Phone 925 833 6630 Fax email Address 100 Civic Plaza City Dublin State CA Zip 34568 Project Location County Alameda City Dublin Region Lat / Long 37'42'23" N 1 121' 54'37" W Cross Streets Between Sierra Lane and the North City Limit Parcel No. Along Public ROW Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Hwy 580, 680 Airports Railways Waterways Alamo Crk, Canal, Chabot Canal, other canal Schools Valley HS Land Use Project issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic - Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage /Absorption; Flood Plain /Flooding; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Geologic /Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population /Housing Balance; Public- Services; Recreation /Parks; Schools /Universities; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland /Riparian; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 11/05/2012 Start of Review 11/05/2012 End of Review 12/04/2012 Comment Letter 4: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit The City received a letter from the State Clearinghouse acknowledging that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the select state agencies for review. The letter did not include any comments regarding environmental effects of the project. The comment letter from Caltrans dated December 4, 2012 was received separately (see Comment Letter 2 above). llf l',, :Sf,- �('m:i o[t ,heil,y R', r ,,(m:i Y1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� This page intentionally left blank. �nitia�Study DuugheilyRuad�mpruvements SECTION 2 - REVISED INITIAL STUDY Dougherty Road Improvements Project Description 1. Project Title: Dougherty Road Improvements 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact Person and Phone Number. Ferd Del Rosario, 925 - 833 -6630, email: Erd.:. J r.. sa..L!.�!..0 ..L!....!.!.. ] ..::g. ✓ 4. Project Location: The project is located in Alameda County, within the City of Dublin on Dougherty Road (see Figure 1). The project site begins near the southern end of Dougherty Road at Sierra Lane and continues northerly along Dougherty Road to Fall Creek Road at the City boundary with San Ramon (see Figure 2). The project site includes the entire paved portion of Dougherty Road between these points as well as lands both within and outside the unpaved public right -of -way on the east side of Dougherty Road. On the west side of Dougherty Road, the project site's limit is the existing curb. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 6. General Plan Designation: Figure 3 shows General Plan land use designations around the project site, which include: • Dougherty Road Right -of -Way: No roadways in Dublin have General Plan designations • Lands Adjacent to Dougherty Road (east side only; no west side lands involved) • Sierra Lane to Houston Place: Business Park /Industrial and Outdoor Storage • Houston Place to Scarlett Drive: • Medium /High- Density Residential and Retail Office (mixed use) • Medium /High- Density Residential • North of Scarlett Drive: Parks Reserve Force Training Area (Camps Parks) 7. Zoning: Figure 4 shows zoning around the project site, which includes: • Dougherty Road Right -of -Way: No roadways in Dublin are zoned • Lands Adjacent to Dougherty Road (east side only; no west side lands involved) o Sierra Lane to Houston Place: Planned Development (PD 1411 ZU) llf l',, :Sf,- �('m:i o[- igheil,y R', r ,(:i Y1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� • Houston Place to Scarlett Drive: Planned Development • PD 1411 ZU • PD 99 -030 • North of Scarlett Drive: • M -1 Light Industrial (Iron Horse Trail Area) • Agriculture (Camp Parks Reserve Force Training Area) 8. Project Background and Description: Background The City of Dublin proposes multi -modal improvements to Dougherty Road, including new and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, new bus stops and bus pull -outs, and roadway widening. These improvements will address traffic congestion and multi -modal circulation issues for commuters traveling Dougherty Road, including improved access to the Dublin /Pleasanton BART station. The City has long planned for improvement to Dougherty Road. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan (adopted 1985) called for the expansion of Dougherty Road to a six -lane arterial. Subsequent updates to the Circulation Element called for the addition of on- street ( "Class II ") bicycle lanes to the entire length of Dougherty Road. Since adopting the Circulation Element in 1985, the City has enforced a dedication requirement from property owners along Dougherty Road to provide the necessary area for the anticipated future roadway width. As development occurred along the Dougherty Road corridor the City has required new buildings and parking areas to be sufficiently set back from the existing roadway to allow for the future roadway widening. The City previously expanded the roadway to a divided six -lane facility south of Sierra Lane. However, the portion of Dougherty Road between Sierra Lane and the City limits to the north has generally remained at 4 lanes with no median or on- street bicycle lanes provided. The proposed project would widen Dougherty Road in accordance with the City Circulation Element resulting in a consistent roadway cross - section, pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the entire length of Dougherty Road from Dublin Boulevard to the North City Limit. Description The Dougherty Road Improvements Project (the project) will improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along a 1.9 mile long section of Dougherty Road, from the intersection of Sierra Lane and Dougherty Road, north to the city limit line (with roadway and median conforms extending approximately 800 - feet into the City of San Ramon). Improvements will include adding Class II bicycle lanes on both directions of travel, and reconstructing or resurfacing the existing 8' -wide bicycle and pedestrian path on the east side of the roadway. The project will also widen the roadway from a four -lane facility into a six -lane divided roadway, with a raised landscaped median in the middle of roadway, including left -turn pockets at several road intersections. Approximately six on- street parking spaces between Sierra Lane and Houston Place will be removed as part of the project. These spaces are located along the eastern (northbound) side of Dougherty Road, within the existing public right -of- way. Appendix A includes plan and profile sheets showing the proposed project improvements. Figures 5 through 7 illustrate future lane configurations. Figures 8 and 9 show proposed landscaping concepts for the project. Traffic signals within the project limits will be modified to match the new roadway geometry, including signals at Sierra Lane, Scarlett Drive, South Mariposa Drive, Amador Valley Blvd, and Willow S (:iY o[t ,heil,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� Creek Drive (The South Mariposa Drive signal is planned to be installed prior to this project by KB Home to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Emerald Vista development). Utility relocations and adjustment will be necessary in order to support the project, including, but not limited to, the relocation of a Pacific, Gas & Electric (PG &E) transmission line pole and a portion of a Zone 7 water pipeline facility.3 The project would also include new roadway lighting and landscaping along the east side of the roadway. Clean water features supporting compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's C.3 requirements will be implemented. The project also proposes drainage swales in the new roadway median. The project design will direct a substantial portion of stormwater collected in the northbound lanes into the new median. Right -of -way acquisition from a commercial property would be necessary to construct the project .4 Construction and operation of the project may also require minor refinements to the terms of existing City easements over other properties. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Surrounding properties consist of mixed residential use and undeveloped land to the north, the Camp Parks and commercial uses to the east, a mix of residential and commercial use to the west, and commercial use to the south. 10. Construction Project construction is planned to take place in two or three phases across one or more construction seasons (typically spring to fall). The first phase is expected to include approximately 0.8 miles of project improvements between Scarlett Drive and North City Limit. The second phase will complete the remaining portion of project improvements (approximately 0.7 miles long) between Scarlett Drive and the North City Limit. The third phase will include the project improvements between Sierra Lane and Scarlett Drive. This last phase of the project could be constructed concurrently with either of the first two phases listed above or separately. Construction of the project would require grubbing and land clearing to prepare the site for grading and landscaping. Subsequent to clearing, drainage, other utilities, and sub -grade engineering work would be implemented, followed by paving and landscaping. Dougherty Road would remain open and appropriate traffic controls would be in place during all phases of construction. 11. Public agencies whose approvals are required for project implementation: • City of Dublin • City of San Ramon (for portions of project at City boundary) • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (building demolition) 3 The project would require relocation of an electrical transmission line in conflict with project improvements, but is not anticipated to alter the alignment of the transmission lines. 4 This property was developed for commercial use prior to the incorporation of the City. S 'Ii,l,('m,i o[f gheilfir =.rr,o`m4 YY1i.tYr�!4 YY1� Y1I� Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This initial study includes an evaluation of impacts based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix Environmental Checklist. Each checklist item is explained in the discussion following the checklist and, if necessary, mitigation measures are provided to reduce impacts to a less- than - significant level. In accordance with CEQA, all answers take into account the whole of the action, including on- and off -site effects, direct and indirect effects, and effects from both construction and operation of any new development. Each checklist criterion is marked to identify whether there is an environmental impact. No Impact indicates that there is no impact. 0 Less- than - Significant Impact means that while there is some impact, the impact does not exceed any identified thresholds. Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated indicates that a significant impact has been identified in the course of this analysis and mitigation measures have been provided in this initial study to reduce a potentially significant impact to a less- than - significant level. Significant Impact indicates that not all impacts have been reduced to less- than - significant and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required. As noted previously, mitigation measures developed for this project reduce any significant impacts to a less- than - significant level and an EIR will not be required. Cumulative Impacts are discussed in Section XVIII, Mandatory Findings. The project is considered in combination with approved and proposed projects in the vicinity of the project, as well as the projected buildout of the County as allowed under the County's General Plan to determine if the cumulative impact is significant or less than significant. If a significant cumulative impact is identified, the project's contribution to the significant cumulative impact is considered. c, .. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Mitigation measures have been provided for each significant impact, reducing all to a less -than- significant level. ❑ Aesthetics ® Air Quality ® Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ® Biological Resources ® Geology & Soils ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Noise ❑ Public Services ❑ Transportation & Circulation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance llf l',, :Sf'- �('m:i 'o[-i ,heil''y F"'.oa"(:4 YY1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Yif� H. M r, IT ri r. W or, On the basis of this initial evaluatiow I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ancla NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1:1 I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, but mitigations identified in this Initial Study will reduce these impacts to a less than significant CK level, and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1:1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier ❑ analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) ❑1 have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose_0,u on the proposed project, X, Date Du)ft lnitjal Study November 2012 -6- DouLhe Ly Road Improvements ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 or nighttime views in the area? Project Setting The existing visual character of the project site is influenced by adjacent land uses, the landscaped and bermed area along the existing bicycle path, and more distant views towards hillside areas. Distant views of Mount Diablo can be seen while traveling north on Dougherty Road or the existing bicycle /pedestrian path. The southern part of the project site has a more developed, urbanized character, whereas north of Scarlett Drive, the bike path, trees, and berm create a somewhat more open, less developed visual character. However, the entire project site is located within an urbanized area with existing lighting. Sources of existing nighttime light on the project site include streetlights, lights associated with commercial development /signs, and internal /external residential lighting. The City of Dublin's General Plan (Community Design and Sustainability Element) identifies Dougherty Road as a corridor of regional significance. Policy goals for corridors of regional significance include incorporation of design features that promote positive regional identity, including attractive development, unique landscaping, and preservation of views to rolling hillsides and other prominent features. According to the City's Streetscape Master Plan, Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard is one of the City's gateways. Per this plan, gateways should include design features that encourage a sense of arrival, such as landscaping, monument signage, and /or special median treatment. 7 .. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less - than - Significant Impact. Although there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site the City's General Plan identifies Dougherty Road as a corridor of regional significance. Corridors of regional significance are important to the character of the City and new development projects that fall within these corridors are subject to design review by the City to protect the corridor's visual quality. The project entails widening of the existing roadway, construction of a landscaped median, and improvements to the bike path and landscaping on the east side of Dougherty Road. Implementation of the project would not substantially alter or obstruct existing views of Mount Diablo to the north or the rolling hillsides to the south and east. Work proposed consists primarily of grading, paving, and other surficial improvements. No structures would be erected; however, the project is expected to involve the demolition of the existing Camp Parks guardhouse located to the north of the Camp Parks entrance sign. Therefore, implementation of the project would not block or obstruct existing views and would have a less- than - significant impact on scenic vistas. No mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project is not located within a state scenic highway. Depending on final project design, it may be necessary to relocate the Camp Parks entrance sign, which is an eligible historical resource- (see Mitigation Measure CUL -1). The project involves removal of some of the existing trees adjacent to the existing landscaping berm to make way for the relocated bicycle path and new landscaping along the berm. Moreover, the project will provide a landscaped median to enhance the corridor's scenic character. In all, the project would not have any impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project will add visual enhancements such as a landscaped median, improvements to the bike path, and plantings along the berm (see Figures 8 and 9). These landscaping treatments will enhance the corridor's overall visual character, in a manner consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan. Therefore, implementation of the project would enhance the visual character of the area and would have less- than - significant beneficial impacts to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site is located in an existing urbanized setting with streetlights and lights from residential and commercial uses. The project would introduce a change in nighttime lighting through installation of streetlights along the bicycle and pedestrian path on the east side of Dougherty Road, adjacent to Camp Parks. However, new street lighting would be similar in design and light output to existing lights on the west side of Dougherty Road. Given existing lighting in the corridor, proposed new lighting would not adversely affect nighttime views. The project would not introduce any features that would cause glare or change daytime views through lighting. Therefore, impacts of the project on light and glare would be less- than - significant. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y =.rr,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� 11. Agriculture and Forest Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non- El El El ❑ agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act El El F-1 ❑ contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest ❑ ❑ El ❑ use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Project Setting According to the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the entire paved portion of Dougherty Road as well as lands immediately adjacent S (':iY to the roadway are designated as Urban and Built -Up Land. The project site does not include any type of protected farmlands (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance) .s Camp Parks is zoned "Agriculture" on the City's Zoning Map; however, no substantial agriculture activities are known to occur anywhere on Camp Parks land. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? No impact. The project site is a developed roadway and is not designated as farmlands of statewide or local importance. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to a non - agricultural use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract? Less - than - Significant Impact. Although Camp Parks includes a mix of institutional and residential uses, the City has zoned the entirety of Camp Parks as "Agriculture" (Figure 4). No portion of the Camp Parks property is in agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. Land uses at Camp Parks consist of a mix of institutional and residential uses. Although the project may require adjustments to the City's existing easements on Camp Parks property, a minor expansion of an existing right -of -way as proposed by the project does not constitute any substantial conflict with the underlying existing zoning. As noted above, the entire project site, including Camp Parks, is considered to be "urban and built -up land" per the California Department of Conservation. Project impacts would thus be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? and d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? and 5 Alameda County Important Farmland 2010. State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. < f: tis�..:././ f:. k:..:.. cc�w,, srv.:. c.=:..:. g. ��. v/ k:. u.. ��./ d.. l.. r../. F.✓ I..✓ I.. P./ k:. d. f/ 2.. 0.. 1: :.0./ ,I, ..1::. .:..1�. f> Accessed July 5, 2012. $ S 'Ii,l,(:i o[1 gheily l,o,o`m4 YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� L(I e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No impact. The project site is fully urbanized and neither includes nor is zoned for forest land or timberland use. Nor does the project site include active farmland or forest land and no such lands are in the immediate vicinity. Accordingly, the project would neither directly nor indirectly convert farmland nor forest land to any other use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. llf l',, :Sf'_�('m:i 'o[_i ,heil''y R"oa"(:4 YY1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. 22 Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements 111. Air Quality Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Management Plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ El air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under federal or state ambient ❑ ❑ ® El air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Setting Qualified scientists at Illingworth and Rodkin prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment for the project in July 2012. The report is included as Appendix B. The project involves widening an existing roadway from four lanes to six lanes and expanding bicycle facilities, but would not add any land uses that would generate additional vehicle trips. The project, however, has the potential to alter travel patterns in the area and thus result in a change in air pollutant /greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to existing conditions. In addition, construction of the project would emit air pollutants and GHGs. Current Regulatory Environment The Clean Air Act requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants considered harmful to human health or the environment. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has also adopted the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Federal and state air quality standards in the Bay Area are regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, BAAQMD is required to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants in which the Bay Area is in non - attainment. llf l',, :Sf'_�('m:i Syr 'ol"i h '11'y F"'.oa"(:4 YY1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Yif� The Bay Area is considered a non - attainment area for ground -level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non - attainment for respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. In June 2010, the BAAQMD Board of Directors adopted new CEQA thresholds of significance as part of a larger BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document. In subsequent litigation, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were determined to be a project under CEQA; BAAQMD was duly ordered to rescind the thresholds underlying the guidelines pending completion of environmental review per CEQA. The preparers of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment have reviewed the evidence used to formulate the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines including BAAQMD's May 2010 staff report recommending the adoption of the thresholds and its attachments, and conclude that substantial evidence supports the use of BAAQMD's 2010 thresholds of significance as thresholds of significance for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts in this IS /MND.6 Sensitive Receptors "Sensitive receptors" are land uses that are of particular concern when analyzing the potential effects of the project. Persons who are more likely to be affected by air pollution include children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are the residences located on the west side of Dougherty Road, roughly 30 feet from the project site. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? No Impact. The most recent clean air plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan that was adopted by BAAQMD in September 2010. The project would not conflict with the latest clean air planning efforts since (1) the project would have emissions well below the BAAQMD thresholds (see Impact C), and (2) the project has been planned as a transportation improvement project that is included in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and the 2012 -2017 Capital Improvement Program. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 6 BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines and May 2010 staff report are available for review at <http: / /www.baagmd.gov/ Divisions /Planning- and - Research /CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx >. $ S 'Ii,l,(:i o[1 gheily l,o ,(:i YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less - than - Significant Impact. As demonstrated below and in Appendix B, the project would have emissions below significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD for evaluating impacts to ozone and particulate matter. As discussed in Impact C below, the project would not contribute substantially to existing or projected violations of those standards. Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the pollutant of greatest concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high - localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Air pollutant monitoring data indicate that carbon monoxide levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below state and federal standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as attainment for the standard. There is an ambient air quality monitoring station in Livermore that measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The highest measured level over any 8 -hour averaging period during the last 3 years is less than 2 parts per million (ppm), compared to the ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. The roadways affected by the project have relatively low traffic volumes compared to the busier intersections in the Bay Area. BAAQMD screening guidance indicates that projects would have a less than significant impact to carbon monoxide levels if project traffic projections indicate traffic levels would not increase at any affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The intersections affected by the project have much lower traffic volumes (less than 10,000 vehicles per hour). The change in traffic caused by the project would be minimal and the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard. Therefore, impacts to air quality standards or contribution to air quality violations would be less - than- significant and no mitigation is required. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction and operational phases of the project have the potential to result in an increase in air pollutant emissions relative to existing conditions. As described under project setting above, the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment report considers the thresholds and methodologies from BAAQMD's May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to be supported by substantial scientific evidence uses these thresholds to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing environment. S (':iY Construction Period Emissions A computer model was used to estimate air pollutant emissions resulting from anticipated project construction activities, equipment, and duration.' The results of this modeling are summarized below; please see Appendix B for additional detail. The modeling conservatively assumed that all construction activities would be compressed into a single 6 -month period. A shorter construction period would normally result in more intense, concentrated air quality impacts on both a daily and annual basis. Emissions from the project would result primarily from on -site operation of construction equipment (off -road equipment) and from trucks hauling soil or paving material. Construction will occur within two to three phases across one or two construction seasons (April 1 to October 31, or seven months). The on -site equipment (including signal boards, rubber -tired dozers, scrapers, excavators, graders, rubber -tired loaders, plate compactors, backhoes, pavers, rollers, and water trucks) and anticipated phasing information were input to the computer model. In order to compute average daily emissions, total emissions were divided by the entire construction period (assumed to be 6 months or 120 working days). Average daily emissions are compared against BAAQMD thresholds. Table 1 provides a summary of the total annual and average daily criteria pollutant emissions from project construction activities, along with a comparison to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. As shown in Table 1 below, emissions of all pollutants are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. If the project were to be constructed in phases over multiple years and not condensed into 6 months, daily and annual emissions levels would be less concentrated and thus lower still than the levels predicted for a single 6 -month period. Therefore, impacts related to net increase of criteria pollutants related to construction period emissions would be less- than - significant and no mitigation is required. ' For projects of this type, the BAAQMD recommends use of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's Road Construction Model Version 6.3.2 (Road Mod). The Road Mod model uses CARB's OFFROAD model to compute emissions from construction equipment. Road Mod takes into account hours of operation, load factor, and emission factors for each piece of equipment. The model default values were used for computing exhaust emissions rates with the exception that load factors for equipment usage were reduced by 33 percent to be consistent with CARB's OFFROAD2010 modeling methodologies. S 'Ii,l,(:i o[f gheilfir =.rr,o`m4 YY1i.tYr�!4 YY1� Y1I� Table 1. Construction Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PMi.s Annual Emissions (tons per year) 0.3 2.3 0.1 0.1 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons per year) 10 10 15 10 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) 5.0 38.3 1.7 1.7 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: BAAQMD 2010, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012 Operational Period Emissions The project would not generate new vehicular trips but would increase roadway capacity and alter traffic patterns as a result of access changes to side streets and individual properties. As a result, traffic and air pollutant emissions would change relative to existing conditions. A separate computer model was used to estimate with - project daily exhaust emissions from vehicle trips on the project site.$ As shown in Tables 2 and 3 below, the net increase in emissions from the Existing condition to both the Existing Plus Project condition and the Far -Term Plus Project condition 8 The modeling involved the use of weighted emissions factors from CARB's EMFAC 2011 for the county - average vehicle fleet year projected in 2012 (for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions) and 2025 (for the Far -Term Plus Project condition). Project traffic data was obtained from the project traffic report. On the project site, p.m. peak -hour trips were found to be higher in volume than their a.m. counterpart. The relative percentage of p.m. peak -hour trip volumes to project site average daily traffic (ADT) was calculated to be 9.3 percent based on counts conducted in February 2012. For each condition, the number of p.m. peak -hour trips per roadway segment (i.e., Sierra Lane to Scarlett Drive) in each direction was multiplied by the length of that segment and divided by 9.3 percent to get vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT was then multiplied by the EMFAC2011 weighted emissions factor for each criteria pollutant to determine project emissions. S 'Ii,l,(':iY f1���1��Y'I`��F l,rr�o`m4 YY1i.tYr�!4 YY1� Y1I� J 7 .. would be below the established significance thresholds.9 Therefore, impacts related to net increase of criteria pollutants related to operational period emissions would be less- than - significant and no mitigation is required. Table 2. Daily Air Pollutant Emission Changes from Operation of the Project (pounds /day) Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PMi.s Existing 14.9 111.5 2.7 2.5 Existing Plus Project 15.0 112.1 2.7 2.5 Maximum Net Increase 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 Doily Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Far -Term Plus Project 7.6 47.3 1.2 1.1 Maximum Net Increase -7.3 -64.2 -1.5 -1.4 Doily Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: BAAQMD 2010, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012 9 Emission calculations are shown in Attachment 2 of Appendix B. 1lfl'TI `:'f ,(:iY 'o[_1gheil'y F"' r "(`:i YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� Table 3. Annual Air Pollutant Emission Changes from Operation of the Project (tons /year) Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PMi.s Existing 2.7 20.4 0.5 0.5 Existing Plus Project 2.7 20.5 0.5 0.5 Maximum Net Increase 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Annual Emission Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Far -Term Plus Project 1.4 8.6 0.2 0.2 Maximum Net Increase -1.3 -11.8 -0.3 -0.3 Daily Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: BAAQMD 2010, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012 cl) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Both construction and operational activities have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are defined in the Project Setting above. The closest sensitive receptors are residential land uses located approximately 30 feet from the project site. Construction Construction activities are projected to be completed in two to three phases, across one or two construction seasons. Operations would not be intensive and would not require the use of large construction equipment for extended periods of time that could expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. There would be demolition of the existing roadway and some site grading, which is typically the greatest cause of construction period emissions. As indicated above, emissions would be below the BAAQMD thresholds and are not expected to cause adverse impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The types of construction activities proposed and relative short duration of these activities would not cause significant exposures to TACs or PM2.5. However, best management practices are necessary during demolition, trenching, and grading activities to avoid generation of dust that may affect nearby sensitive receptors. Best management practices for controlling construction period air pollutant emissions are identified in Mitigation Measure AQ -1. JC1 Mitigation Measure AQ -1: During demolition or any construction ground disturbance, implement measures to control dust and exhaust. The contractor shall implement the following Best Management Practices, which are recommended by BAAQMD and are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. Significance after mitigation: Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and construction to a less- than - significant level. 'f.I Operation Operation of the project would include increased mobile sources of TACs (vehicles along Dougherty Road) that would generate air pollutant emissions. The BAAQMD provides screening tables that indicate predicted community risk impacts that roadways pose. These tables were used to develop screening level estimates of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations. Note that the screening tables published by BAAQMD indicate that non - cancer hazards (acute and chronic) from traffic would be well below the BAAQMD thresholds. A project would result in a significant impact if project emissions of TACs or PM2.5 cause an existing sensitive receptor to be exposed to levels that exceed any of the thresholds of significance listed below. • An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in 1 million, or a non - cancer (chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0. • An incremental increase of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (pg /m3) annual average PM2.5. Existing and future average daily traffic (ADT) along Dougherty Road was predicted by dividing the highest volume roadway segment by 9.3 percent (the percentage p.m. peak hour traffic volumes compared to ADT on the project site). For the Existing condition, this was found to be 34,742 vehicle trips per day. For the Far -Term Plus Project condition, ADT was found to be 47,484 vehicle trips per day in 2025. A review of the screening tables for the project indicate that cancer risk and PM2.5 levels under the Far -Term Plus Project condition would be 11.4 and 0.5 pg /m3, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet. The cancer risk and PM2.5 levels under the Existing condition are 8.1 and 0.3 pg /m3, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet. Therefore, the increase in excess cancer risk for the Far -Term Plus Project condition would be 3.3 and the incremental PM2.5 increase would be 0.2 pg /m3, which are both below the respective significance thresholds. This screening approach is very conservative, because it applies current projections of cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure to future traffic volumes. Given regulatory requirements for cleaner fuels and more efficient engines, emissions of TACs and PM2.5 are expected to decrease substantially in the future. Therefore, project operations would be expected to have a less- than - significant impact with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation is required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities may cause localized odors that would be temporary and are not anticipated to result in frequent, long -term odor complaints. Operation of the project would not generate odors that would result in confirmed odor complaints. In all, the project would result in less- than - significant impacts related to odors. No mitigation is required. 2 :I... �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. 22 Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements IV. Biological Resources Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to: marsh, vernal pool, coastal, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established resident or El El El ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree El El F-1 ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, El El El ❑ Regional, or state habitat Conservation plan? Project Setting A Biological Study for the project was conducted by Garcia and Associates in July 2012 and was revised in October 2012. The report is included as Appendix C. The study identified biological resources within the project area utilizing information from multiple sources, including the California 2 Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Species List Generator, USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. The USFWS species list for the project study area includes ten species, listed below, with a moderate or high potential to occur within the project study area. The Biological Study reviewed impacts per a defined "biological study area," which is referred to as the "project study area" in this section. The project study area includes the entire project site plus additional buffer space on the east side of Dougherty Road. The project would only expand paved roadway width by adding lands from the east side of Dougherty Road. Potential Special- Status Plant Species in the Project Study Area • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) • Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) • Large - flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) Potential Special- Status Wildlife on the Project Study Area • California red - legged frog (Rana draytonii) • California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) • White - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) • Migratory birds (nesting) • American badger (Taxidea taxus) • San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) A search of the USFWS critical habitat mapper (2012 USFWS Critical Habitat Portal) indicates that no designated critical habitat lies within the project study area. According to the USFWS Wetland Inventory, no wetlands occur within the project study area. In addition, no sensitive plant species were observed within the project study area, nor does the City of Dublin participate in any Habitat Conservation Plan. Along the east side of Dougherty Road, east of the bicycle path is a constructed earthen berm that acts as an informal physical and visual barrier between Dougherty Road and Camp Parks. The berm extends from the northern end of the project study area south to the intersection of Dougherty Road and North Avenue. Between the bicycle path and Dougherty Road is a drainage swale that is approximately 45 feet wide. The berm and swale are vegetated with non - native annual grasslands and include some bare patches and gravel fill. The plan for widening Dougherty Road includes converting approximately 45 feet of the swale's width to roadway — and 50 feet of the swale where the two turn lanes will be added — and maintaining the remainder as a drainage feature for the road. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y =.rr,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Yif� 4 There are approximately 100 young western sycamore trees in the project study area along the eastern edge of Dougherty Road between the bike trail and the berm. Although the western sycamores are native to California, these trees were planted for landscaping purposes, but can nonetheless provide nesting habitat for protected bird species. There is a freshwater marsh at the north end of the project study area, just south of the Fall Creek Road intersection on the east side of Dougherty Road. A natural drainage extends from Camp Parks into the project study area, and it is in a culvert section as it passes under the existing bike path. Above the inlet to the culvert, a small (0.24 acre) area of freshwater marsh occurs. Common freshwater marsh vegetation, such as hardstem bulrush marsh and cattail marshes may be found. Common wildlife that could be expected to occur in freshwater marsh habitat includes passerine birds and Pacific chorus frogs. Freshwater marsh habitat can also provide nesting habitat for birds in stands of tule or cattail. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The CNDDB, the USFWS' Species List Generator, and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were reviewed for the project study area and surrounding 5 -mile radius to document occurrence of special- status species in the project study area and to determine their location relative to the project study area. None of the plants found through these searches have a federal or state listing status. No sensitive plant species were observed in the project study area during the habitat assessment. The berm and swale between the bike path and Camp Parks on the east side of Dougherty Road are vegetated with non - native annual grasses, which cover approximately 56 percent of the project study area. Previous earthmoving on the project study area to create the berm and roadway has degraded the soils and grassland, which make the annual grassland within the project study area unsuitable for rare plants. Thus, the project would not result in any impacts to special- status plant species. Based on the CNDDB and the USFWS' Species List Generator review, several special- status wildlife species have been documented on or within 5 miles of the project study area including California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, Western pond turtle, Burrowing owl, Tricolored blackbird, California horned lark, White - tailed kite, Migratory birds (nesting), American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox. The biological analysis concluded that the project would have potentially significant impacts to the following animal species because of physical observation or the presence of suitable habitat: • California Red - legged Frog • California Tiger Salamander • Western Pond Turtle • Burrowing Owl • Tricolored Blackbird • California Horned Lark • White - tailed Kite S (':iY • Nesting Birds • American Badger • San Joaquin Kit Fox Each of these species is discussed in greater detail below. Mitigation Measure 1310 -1 would reduce project impacts to all potentially- impacted species discussed below. Mitigation Measure 1310 -1: Biological Training and Best Practices • Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct an environmental training session (Worker's Environmental Awareness Program) for all construction personnel. The training shall include a description of the listed species with potential to occur on the project study area, a report of the occurrence of the species on the project study area, their habitats, an explanation of the status of the species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act, and the avoidance and minimization measures that are being implemented to reduce impacts to the species on -site. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for all personnel associated with the project and for anyone else who may enter the site. On completion of training, employees shall sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protective measures. • During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed from the site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris from the site shall be removed. • All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet (30.5 meters) from any riparian habitat, water body, or drainage feature. The construction contractor shall ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. • Prior to the start of construction, the construction contractor shall prepare a plan to ensure a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. • Best management practice (BMP) erosion control measures shall be implemented to reduce sedimentation in wetland habitat occupied by covered animal and plant species when activities are the source of potential erosion problems. Plastic mono - filament netting or similar material for erosion control shall not be permitted. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackified hydroseeding compounds. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1310 -1, in combination with additional biological mitigation measures below, would reduce project impacts to all potentially impacted species discussed below to a less- than - significant level. California Red - legged Frog California red - legged frog breeding populations have been documented within 2 miles of the project study area, which is within the dispersal distance for this species. The project study area, however, does not provide suitable breeding habitat and Dougherty Road and residential neighborhoods to the west are partial barriers to movement through the project study area. However, the freshwater 2f marsh at the northern end of the project study area may be suitable for temporary refuge during migration. In addition, ground squirrel burrows that occur in the swale and berm are suitable for temporary refuge. Notwithstanding the low probability of the occurrence of California red - legged frogs, the habitat in the Swale and berm is generally suitable for their summer hibernation. Although occurrence of California red - legged frogs within the project study area is unlikely and potential impacts are limited, construction where ground squirrel burrows occur in the Swale and berm may adversely affect California red - legged frogs through permanent impact to potential summer hibernation habitat. Mitigation Measure BI0-2 incorporates all pertinent CRLF avoidance and minimization measures from the Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Authorizations under the Nationwide Permit Program for Projects that May Affect the California Red - legged Frog (hereafter referred to as the CRLF PBO (California Red - legged Frog Programmatic Biological Opinion); USFWS 1999a). In some cases, the measures are tailored to be more project- specific. Notably, measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the CRLF will also serve to avoid and /or minimize potential impacts to California tiger salamander (CTS) and San Joaquin kit fox. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: • A qualified biologist shall conduct a visual encounter survey for California red - legged frogs at the work sites two weeks before the onset of activities and again immediately prior to commencing ground- disturbing activities. • An environmentally sensitive area (ESA) and exclusion zone shall be established around the freshwater marsh on -site by a qualified biologist. The ESA and exclusion zone shall be fenced with erosion control fencing (in a manner consistent with Mitigation Measure BI0-1) and marked with high visibility fencing. The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site and the aquatic feature (wet or dry). • As the work site is within the typical dispersal distance of potential breeding habitat, barrier fencing shall be constructed around the worksite to prevent amphibians from entering the work area. Barrier fencing shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of work. • A qualified biologist shall be present for initial ground- disturbing activities. The biologist shall have authority to stop any work that may result in impacts to CRLF. If the biologist exercises this authority, the USFWS and the CDFGW10 will be notified by telephone and electronic mail within 2 working days. io As of January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game officially changed its name to "California Department of Fish and Wildlife" and is referenced in this document as "California Department of Fish and Wildlife" or "CDFW." <http:// www. dfq .ca.gov /aboutlnamechange.htmi> Accessed January 3, 2012. S 'Ii,l,(':i Y �)f1���1��Y'I`��F l,rr �o`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� 7 • If CRLF are encountered in the project area, work within the immediate vicinity shall cease immediately and the City shall engage a qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or is Service - approved under an active biological opinion. Based on the professional judgment of the biologist, if project activities can be conducted without harming or injuring the CRLF, the individual(s) shall be left at the location of discovery and monitored by the biologist. All project personnel shall be notified of the finding and at no time shall work occur within the vicinity of the listed species without a biological monitor present. If it is determined by the biologist that relocating the CRLF is necessary, the USFWS will be contacted to consult regarding translocation outside of the project area. • No monofilament plastic shall be used for erosion control. • The construction contractor shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion during and after project implementation. " • Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches each morning and evening of construction for any trapped CRLF. • Work shall be avoided within suitable habitat areas from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1 inch or greater) to May 1. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BI0-2 would reduce project impacts to the California red - legged frog to a less- than - significant level. California Tiger Salamander California tiger salamander CTS breeding populations have been recorded within 2 miles of the project study area on Camp Parks property. However, the closest known occurrence of breeding ponds is located over 1.3 miles from the project area. This distance is greater than the dispersal distance for most individuals. a4;4 Dougherty Road and residential neighborhoods to the west are partial barriers to movement of GalifeF^i ^^r ,^'ai;;aR '^r ^FF CTS from Camp Parks through the project study area. The freshwater marsh is not suitable for breeding but may be suitable for temporary refuge during migration. Although the project study area is at the far end of the expected range for dispersal from breeding ponds in Camp Parks, ground squirrel burrows in the swale and berm may be suitable for ,..w w hibe-FRatieR aestivation. Notwithstanding the low probability of occurrence of CTS GalifeFRia tigeF s^'aicnaA eF this habitat is generally suitable for aestivation the,* ii As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, Best Management Practices are included in the City of Dublin's NPDES permit. S 'Ii,l,(:i o[1 gheily l,o,o`m4 YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� 28 Although occurrence of CTS Gal ifeF^i ^^r s^'ai;gaR er within the project study area is unlikely and potential impacts are limited, construction where ground squirrel burrows occur in the swale and berm may adversely affect CTS GalifeF^i ^^r s^'ai;gaR er through permanent impact to potential aestivation habitat or temporary impacts to migrants. Recommended mitigation measures for CTS are outlined below and are consistent with avoidance and mitigation measures of the East Alameda County eConservation Strategy (EACCS 2010). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-3 would avoid or reduce potential impacts to California tiger salamander. Mitigation Measure BI0-3: Pre - Construction Activities • Prior to the initiation of construction, the City shall obtain an incidental take permit (ITP) from the CDFW. Any additional conditions set forth in the ITP to avoid or minimize impacts to CTS shall be incorporated into the project. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey in the immediate area of construction and where equipment will be located and construction activities will occur Pre- construction survey methodology will conform to that specified in the above - referenced ITP. • An environmentally sensitive area (ESA) and exclusion zone shall be established around the freshwater marseh on -site by a qualified biologist. The ESA and exclusion zone shall be fenced with erosion control fencing (in a manner consistent with Mitigation Measure BI0-1) and marked with high visibility fencing. The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site the aquatic feature (wet or dry). • Prior to initiating project construction activities, the City shall install temporary exclusion fencing between the project area and habitat in Camp Parks. The City shall coordinate with Camp Parks to install permanent exclusion fencing on the existing fence between Camp Parks and Dougherty Road, as feasible. Permanent exclusion fencing would be installed at the completion of construction activities, or temporary exclusion fencing would be made permanent. Activities During Construction • A qualified biologist shall be present for initial ground- disturbing activities. The biologist shall have the authority to stop any work that may result in impacts to CTS. If the biologist exercises this authority, the USFWS and the CDF4W shall be notified by telephone and electronic mail within 2 working days. • If CTS are encountered in the project area, work within the immediate vicinity shall cease immediately and the City shall engage a qualified biologist pessessmg a aliel «" -Rased- A- -A the ^r ^F^«ieRal 6idg,,.,^„+ of the biologist to determine if project activities can be conducted without harming or injuring the CTS, in which case the individual(s) shall be left at the location of discovery and monitored by the biologist. All project personnel shall be notified of the finding and at no time will work occur within the vicinity of the listed species without a biological monitor present. USFWS and CDFW shall be notified and determination shall be made as to the method of relocation, if necessary. At no time shall CTS be handled without an ITP from CDFW. If it L; 2 , • No monofilament plastic shall be used for erosion control. • Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches each morning and evening of construction for trapped CTS. • To control erosion during and after project implementation, the construction contractor will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).12 • Work will be avoided within suitable habitat during the rainy season as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS 2010), from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1 inch or greater) to May 1, or as otherwise determined in the ITP. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures B1O -1 and B1O -3 would reduce potential impacts to the California tiger salamander to a less- than - significant level. Western Pond Turtle Recent records of Western Pond Turtles have been found within 1 mile of the project study area, along the natural watercourse on Camp Parks. The freshwater marsh at the north end of the project study area, which will not be directly impacted by the project, is of limited potential use to western pond turtle due to its small size, ephemeral nature of ponded water, and the existing level of disturbance. Upland annual grasslands may be suitable for nesting, but there is limited potential for occurrence due to disturbance. Some of the upland area within 325 feet of the marsh could be permanently impacted by project activities, potentially affecting this species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B1O -4 in combination with Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would avoid or reduce potential impacts to western pond turtle. Mitigation Measure-& B1O -4: Prior to construction within the pond and in the 325 -foot buffer, conduct a visual survey for turtle and /or nests (eggs). Avoid active nests or turtles by means of installation of an exclusion fence between the freshwater marsh and the work area or by establishing a buffer of limited construction activity during construction to avoid impacts to identified nests. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures B1O -1 and B1O -4 would reduce potential impacts to the western pond turtle to a less- than - significant level. 12 As discussed in section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, Best Management Practices are included in the City of Dublin's NPDES permit. 1lf l'TI `: ,f ,(:iY o[1 gheil'y l,oa,(:4 YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� Burrowing Owl Records of burrowing owls occur within and around project s44V area. The ground squirrel burrows in the swale and berm are potentially suitable for nesting. Although the suitability of the habitat in ground squirrel burrows within the swale is limited due to disturbance and dog walking along the bike pathways, ground- disturbing activities during construction could adversely affect burrowing owls through permanent impact to potential nesting habitat and temporary impact to potential nesting habitat adjacent to the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-5 in combination with Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would avoid or reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls. Mitigation Measure BI0-5: The City will implement measures outlined in the CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012), along with informal consultation with CDFW, to determine potential effects of the proposed project and the required mitigation. As a habitat assessment has identified potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat within the project site (GANDA 2012), prior to project initiation occupancy surveys — as defined in CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) — shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If burrowing owls are found to occupy burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, avoidance and minimization measures will be determined in consultation with CDFW and may include: • An impact assessment by a qualified biologist to determine all factors that could affect burrowing owls, including type and extent of disturbance, duration and timing of impact, visibility and sensitivity, environmental factors, significance of impacts, cumulative effects, and mitigation goals. llf l',, :Sf'_�('mf'i 'o[_i ,heil''y F"'.rr "(`m'i Y1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� • A burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan, based on the results of the impact assessment, in consultation with and subject to review and approval by CDFW. • Pre - construction surveys by a qualified biologist of areas within 150 meters (about 492 feet) of the project study area to begin no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities to avoid "take" of burrowing owls and their nests. Pre - construction survey results should be submitted to CDFW for review and approval. • Monitoring by a qualified biologist during site disturbance to prevent impacts to burrowing owls identified during pre- construction surveys. • Establishing buffer zones, visual screens, or other measures during project activities to minimize disturbance impacts to nesting sites. Limits of buffers zone must be clearly marked with signs, flagging, or fencing. Appropriate buffer zones would be determined in consultation with CDFW. Restricted activity dates and buffer zones recommended in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) include: Time of Year Level of Disturbance Low Medium High April 1 -Aug 15 200 meters (about 656 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) Aug 16 -Oct 15 200 meters (about 656 feet) 200 meters (about 656 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) Oct 16 -Mar 31 50 meters (about 164 feet) 100 meters (about 328 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) Source: CDFW, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012 • Compensatory mitiaation throuah the purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank, based on habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owls impacted, in areas where buffer zones are not practicable -- particularly due to access restrictions associated with the proximity of PRFTA —for temporary and /or permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, and /or burrowing owl habitat. Mitigation would be determined in consultation with CDFW. • Burrow exclusion, during the non - breeding season to permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows, for areas that may be permanently impacted by the proposed project. Burrow exclusion and /or closure would be conducted under a CDFW burrowing owl exclusion plan. • Site surveillance by a qualified biologist during project activities to detect burrowing owls that attempt to colonize or re- colonize an area that will be impacted. • Restoration of temporary habitat impacts within the proposed project area to pre- project conditions. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures B10 -1 and B10 -5 would reduce potential project impacts to the burrowing owl to a less- than - significant level. 2 Other Protected Bird Species Tricolored blackbirds: Records were found for tricolored blackbirds within 2 miles of the project study area. It can also be inferred from the close proximity of known occurrences for this species, along with the presence of suitable habitat that this species may occur within the project study area. The suitable habitat is limited to the freshwater marsh and dense stands of vegetation that may occur along the berm, but it is unlikely to be utilized as a nesting location because the water is ephemeral and the species is an extremely rare nesting bird in Alameda County California Horned Lark: Several records were found for California horned larks within a 5 -mile radius of the project study area. Because of the existence of suitable nesting habitat and known occurrences in the area, it is possible that California horned larks could occur within the project study area. The vegetation found throughout the swale is too sparse for nesting habitat; therefore, any disturbance to this species is expected to be limited to unmowed areas of the berm on the east side of the project study area. White - tailed Kite: A white - tailed kite was observed by within the project study area during the habitat assessment on March 27, 2012. Multiple records were also found on white - tailed kites in areas surrounding the project study area. It is therefore likely that white - tailed kites could occur within the project study area during project construction and could nest in larger trees within the project study area or neighboring areas. Any individuals that choose to nest within the developed area of the project study area, however, are generally tolerant of activities that may occur along the road as part of construction, and the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures makes any negative impact from the project unlikely. Passerine Nesting Birds: Trees, landscape vegetation, and annual grasslands within the project study area, including vegetation on the berm and in the freshwater marsh, are suitable for nesting birds. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 in combination with Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would reduce or avoid potential impacts to these protected bird species. Mitigation Measure BI0-6: • To the extent feasible, carry out project construction activities such as tree removal and /or tree trimming, excavation, grading, and the operation of heavy equipment between September 1 and January 31, outside of the nesting season, to avoid or minimize potential impacts to nesting birds. • If project construction activities must occur during the nesting season (from February 1 to August 31) a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for nesting birds. During the surveys, the qualified biologist shall carefully search for active nests /burrows within the work zone and a surrounding buffer zone. • If an active nest is found during the pre- construction survey, the bird species shall be identified and the approximate distance from the closest work site to the nest shall be estimated. Appropriate buffer distances shall be established by a qualified biologist. If active nests are closer than the appropriate buffer distance to the nearest work site then the active nest(s) shall be monitored for signs of disturbance. Disturbance of active S ('m'iY nests shall be avoided until it is determined that nesting is complete and the young have fledged. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BI0-6 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, including protected avian species, to a less- than - significant level. American Badger Records of American badgers occur within 2 miles of the project study area. Suitable -sized burrows were observed during a March 2012, field survey of the site. The ground squirrel population on the berm and swale provides burrows and a prey base for American badger, thus there is a moderate potential for occurrence for this species within the project study area. The fence along the east side of the project study area may limit the potential for occurrence of this species. Notwithstanding the low probability of occurrence of American badgers, any ground- disturbing activity associated with the project has the potential to destroy occupied dens /burrows and may result in impacts to American badger. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-7 in combination with Mitigation Measures BI0-1 would address any impacts to American Badgers potentially occurring on the project study area during construction. Mitigation Measure BI0-7: • Conduct pre- construction surveys for suitable dens /burrows prior to any ground- disturbing activities. • All suitable burrows shall be flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided by crews; if avoidance is not feasible, consultation with California Department of Fish and Game should occur. • Avoidance measures may include designation of an exclusion zone around potential dens during the breeding period (summer through early fall) and hand excavation of dens during the non - breeding period. • A qualified biologist shall be present during construction to monitor any activities within 100 feet of an occupied den. • In addition, the standard recommendations for avoidance and minimization measures for San Joaquin kit fox are also applicable to American badger (Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BI0-7 would reduce potential impacts to the American badger to a less- than - significant level. San Joaquin Kit Fox Records of San Joaquin kit foxes occur within 2 miles of the project study area. The ground squirrel population on the swale and berm provides both burrows and a prey base for San Joaquin kit foxes, indicating a moderate potential for the occurrence of this species within the project study area, However, the existing fence along the east side of the project study area (Camp Parks area) may limit this potential. Habitat within the project study area is only marginally suitable based on an S (':iY �f evaluation using the USFWS San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Evaluation Form (2001), which indicates that potential for impacts to San Joaquin kit foxes is minimal. Any ground- disturbing activity associated with the project has the potential to destroy occupied dens and may result in impacts to San Joaquin kit foxes. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-8 would address any potential impacts to San Joaquin kit foxes potentially occurring on the project study area during construction. Mitigation Measure BI0-8: • Conduct pre- construction surveys no less than fourteen days and no more than thirty days prior to the beginning of ground- disturbance and /or construction activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys shall identify kit fox habitat features on the project study area and evaluate use by kit fox and, if possible, assess the potential impacts to the kit fox by the proposed activity. If a natal /pupping den is discovered within the project study area or within 200 feet of the project boundary, the USFWS must be notified immediately. • Exclusion zones around any identified kit fox dens must have radii measured outward from the entrance. The following are minimums; if they cannot be met USFWS must be contacted. • Potential den — 50 feet • Known den —100 feet • Natal /pupping den (occupied and unoccupied) — Contact USFWS. • Atypical den — 50 feet • Project - related vehicles must observe a 20 -mph speed limit throughout the project study area, except on county or city roads and state or federal highways. Prohibit off -road traffic outside of designated project. • A qualified biologist shall be on -site or on -call during all construction activities that could impact San Joaquin kit fox. If a kit fox is observed in the work area, the USFWS- approved biologist shall have the authority to stop work within 100 feet until the kit fox leaves the area on its own volition. Kit foxes are attracted to den - like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipe becoming trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches (in.) or greater that are stored at a construction site for one (1) or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. Significance after mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BI0-8 would reduce potential impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox to a less- than - significant level. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? and c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to: marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less - than - Significant Impact. No jurisdictional wetlands or waters are located within the project site. A freshwater marsh is located at the northern end of the project study area, south of the Fall Creek Road intersection (Appendix C), but is not within the project construction site. This freshwater marsh may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the CDFGW under Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code. Freshwater marsh habitat may include sensitive vegetation including hardstem bulrush marsh and cattail marshes, wildlife such passerine birds and Pacific chorus frogs, and nesting habitat for birds in stands of tule or cattail. Polluted run -off caused by operations or construction of the project could impact the sensitive freshwater marsh habitat. However, as discussed in Section IX., Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requirements, stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) and hydromodification mitigation measures will be included where practicable. The stormwater treatment BMPs would prevent polluted runoff from impacting the freshwater marsh and other nearby creeks and canals outside of but influenced by the project study area by promoting infiltration, retention, and filtration of pollutants and the hydromodification mitigation measures would allow for metering or detaining run -off. Through compliance with required measures, the impacts of the project on the freshwater marsh would be less- than - significant. No further mitigation is required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact. The project study area is extensively urbanized and includes several barriers, such as fencing around Camp Parks, Dougherty Road, and the residential development on the west side of Dougherty Road, that limit the movement of migratory species and the ability of the area to serve as a significant wildlife corridor. Thus, there is no major wildlife migration use of project study area and no wildlife corridors. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact. The City of Dublin prohibits removal of heritage trees (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 Heritage Trees, Ord. 5 -02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29 -99 § 1 ). The Heritage Tree Ordinance is applicable to all properties within the city, including private property, residential and nonresidential zones, and developed and undeveloped land. Heritage trees, as defined by the ordinance, include any oak (Quercus), bay (Umbellularia Californica), cypress (Cupressaceae), maple (Acer), redwood (Sequoia), buckeye (Aesculus) or sycamore (Platanus racemosa) with a trunk diameter (at a height of 4 feet 6 inches) of 24 inches or greater. The sycamores that occur in the project study area do not have a S (':iY diameter of 24 inches or greater, and therefore would not be classified as heritage trees. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, Regional, or state habitat Conservation plan? No impact. The City of Dublin has not adopted and does not participate in any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Community Plan. However, the project study area is located within the geographic scope ( "study area ") for the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS).13 The EACCS is not a regulatory mechanism, but provides guidance for project -level permits. It is a voluntary tool to inform decisions during standard environmental permitting processes for projects that occur in the study area. As avoidance and minimization measures outlined in this document are consistent with the goals of the EACCS, the project is not anticipated to conflict with the provisions of the EACCS. Notwithstanding, the project study area is outside of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Community Plan and would therefore have no impact on such plans. 13 ICF International, 2010. 7 This page intentionally left blank. �nitia�Study DuugheilyRuad�mpruvements V. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ® ❑ ❑ defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique ❑ ® ❑ ❑ geologic features? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ® ❑ ❑ cemeteries? Project Setting Qualified historians /archaeologists at William Self Associates (WSA), prepared a cultural resources evaluation for the project (Appendix D). Their evaluation was based on a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and a pedestrian survey of the project site and immediate surrounding area. The project would widen Dougherty Road at its intersection with 5t" Street. Two older structures /buildings exist at this location — the Camp Parks entrance sign and a guard building. The cultural resources evaluation concluded that the Camp Parks entrance sign is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The guard building was determined not to be eligible for any federal, state, or local register of historic resources. Paleontological resources include but are not limited to plant and animal fossil and material remains. Certain strata of soils and bedrock are associated with having an increased likelihood of containing fossils or other paleontological resources. A paleontological resources search performed using the University of California Museum of Paleontology's (UCMP) Miocene Mammal Mapping Project S (':iY 3 (MioMap) indicated no previous finds of paleontological resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project sites. According to the Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap) database, the closest paleontological find is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the project site in the City of San Ramon. 14 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated. As noted above, the Camp Parks entrance sign and the guard building at the Dougherty Road and 5t" Street intersection may be impacted by the project. The project would entail the demolition of the guard building. Because the guard building is not an eligible historic resource as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, its demolition does not result in any impact to cultural resources. Roadway widening may encroach upon the entrance sign. Because the project's cultural resources evaluation identified the entrance sign as an eligible historical resource, the sign would be moved if encroachment should be required. Such movement of the sign would be considered a substantial, potentially adverse change in the significance of an historical resource and would thus require mitigation.15 Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would address the potential impact to the potential movement of the Camp Parks entrance sign. Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Prior to beginning project - related construction activities, the Camp Parks entrance sign shall be removed from its original location and relocated in a setting compatible with the original character and use of the entrance sign. The entrance sign's new location shall allow the sign to retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment. Any one of the three options identified below would allow the entrance sign to retain its eligibility for listing on the federal and state register of historic resources: • Option 1: Relocate the Camp Parks entrance sign to outside the project site and closer to Adams Avenue and 5t" Street on the Camp Parks property, 30 to 60 meters 14 MioMap is a database of occurrences of mammals from late Oligocene (Arikarean) through Miocene (Hemphillian) eras in the United States that is produced and updated by the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Carrasco, M.A., B.P. Kraatz, E.B. Davis, and A.D. Barnosky. 2005. Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap). University of California Museum of Paleontology. < 7.. t. k:..:.// vvvvvv..:.... c, w77...@ :..:...... ...Y.:...../.w77,i;.0 „w77,<.. @. / >. Accessed June 21, 2011. 15 If the project would not encroach upon /require relocation of the sign, the sign would be allowed to stay within its historic context and the project would not result in any significant impact to this resource. $ S 'Ii,l,(:i o[f gheil fir l,o ,(':i YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� (about 98 to 196 feet) east of its current location. The sign shall be reinstalled in its original orientation facing Dougherty Road. Option 2: Relocate the sign to an appropriate new permanent location within the current or former boundaries of Camp Parks. This new location would be selected through negotiations between the City of Dublin, the U.S. Army, and any other responsible or involved parties or entities. Option 3: Incorporate the sign into the planning of the future development on Camp Parks lands. This option would require temporary storage of the sign under stewardship of the City of Dublin, the U.S. Army, or an appropriate non - profit historic preservation organization, such as the Dublin Historical Preservation Association, until it can be incorporated into future development on Camp Parks as outlined in Option 2 above. Whichever option is implemented, all activity related to the relocation and storage of the entrance sign shall conform to the standards outlined in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995). CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3) indicate that, "generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource." Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of any of the three options embodied within Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would allow the entrance sign to retain its eligibility for listing on the federal and state registers of historic resources and would thus reduce all potential impacts to historic resources to a less- than - significant level. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5? Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated. The cultural resources evaluation identified no known archaeological resources in the project site. Project archaeologists further concluded that there is a low likelihood of encountering any thus far unrecorded resources. Nonetheless, project construction may potentially uncover unknown or unrecorded archaeological resources. Grading or other soil- disturbing activities could damage or destroy such unknown /unrecorded archaeological artifacts. This is a potentially significant impact for which mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: In the event that unrecorded archaeological resources are encountered during any phase of project construction, the project contractor shall temporarily halt construction and /or grading activities within 25 feet of any find until a qualified archaeologist meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61 can assess the significance of the find and provide proper management and recommendations. A qualified archaeological monitor shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. Prehistoric cultural materials include but are not limited to midden deposits, hearth remains, stone and /or shell artifacts, and /or burials. Historic material, including but not limited to whole or fragmentary ceramic, glass or metal objects, wood, nails, brick, or other materials may occur within the project site in deposits such as old privies, dumps, or as part of earlier fill. 4 J While prehistoric or historic cultural resources would ideally be avoided, if any such resources could not feasibly be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance in consultation with the City of Dublin. If the resources are found to be ineligible for any historic register, impacts to such resources would not be considered significant and avoidance would thus not be necessary. If the resources are found to be eligible to the CRHR, they shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which require development and implementation of a data recovery plan that would include recommendations for the treatment of the discovered archaeological materials. The data recovery plan will be submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval. Upon approval and completion of the data recovery program, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume, and the archaeologist will prepare a report documenting the methods and findings. The report will be submitted to the City of Dublin. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin, a copy of the report will be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). After any appropriate resource recovery and /or mitigation measures are completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume. Mitigation Measure CUL -3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Dublin shall require that the project contractor provide documentation that all construction crews that will work on the project have undergone a training session to inform them of the potential for previously undiscovered archaeological resources within the project site, of the laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, and of the procedures to follow should they discover cultural resources during project - related work. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -2 and CUL -3 would reduce the impacts upon archaeological resources to a less- than - significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic features? Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated. No paleontological resources, sites, or unique geological features have been recorded in or adjacent to the project site. Moreover, the project involves surface -level soil disturbance and would not involve excavation to a depth where paleontological resources are typically located. Paleontological resources would be more likely to be encountered deep grading or excavation activities reached below surficial soils to deeper geologic layers. Notwithstanding, the potential to encounter unknown paleontological resources on the project site during grading and construction still exists. This is considered a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure CUL -4: In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during any phase of project construction, all soil- disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and provide proper management recommendations. The City shall incorporate all feasible recommendations into the project. 4 2 Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure CUL -4 would reduce the potential for project impacts to paleontological resources to a less- than - significant level. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Although the project archaeologist found no records or evidence exist regarding findings of human remains on the project site, ground disturbing activities associated with all phases of project construction have the potential to disturb previously unknown /unrecorded human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Throughout most locations within California, there is potential to uncover Native American human remains. If such remains are discovered during construction activities, it would be necessary to comply with regulations set forth in California law. Mitigation Measure CUL -5: Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety code shall be implemented in the event that human remains, or possible human remains, are located during project - related construction excavation. If human remains are discovered within the project site during construction, all work shall be stopped within 25 feet of the discovery and the contractor shall immediately notify the Alameda County Coroner. At the same time, a qualified archaeologist meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61 shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within twenty -four hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the background to the finds, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Dublin, the County of Alameda, and the Northwest Information Center. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the agencies identified above, and any appropriate treatment completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume. Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure CUL -5 would reduce potential impacts to previously unrecorded human remains to a less- than - significant level. 4 �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. 44 Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements V1. Geology and Soils Would the project: ❑ a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ substantial adverse effects including the ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving: ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent ❑ Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for ❑ the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ iv) Landslide? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off -site landslide, lateral ❑ spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in table 18 -1b of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ilf l'T S 'fi,l,o'miY D'ol"1gh '11'y F"'oa"o`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Yif� Project Setting Qualified geologists at ENGEO prepared a project geologic evaluation report (Appendix E). The project site is located between the San Ramon Valley to the west and the Amador Valley to the southeast. The project site and its immediate surroundings are relatively level with no significant hills or topography within 1/2 mile in any direction. The geologic evaluation noted the presence of an active fault trace that crosses under Dougherty Road between Willow Creek Drive and Wildwood Road. This fault trace has been classified as an Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone. The closest major fault to the project site is the Calaveras Fault, which runs roughly parallel to San Ramon Road more than 1 mile to the west of the project site. Soils underlying the project site include layers of alluvial gravel, sand, and clay. The geologic evaluation found that the project site's northern reaches are underlain with loose, gravity- deposited sediments, which are considered more likely to shift or move, with or without seismic activity. The project site is located within low to moderate liquefaction zones, with the exception of the area immediately surrounding Alamo Creek, which is recorded as having a higher risk of liquefaction. 16 a. i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less - than - Significant Impact. As noted in the project's geologic evaluation (Appendix E), an active trace fault designated as an Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone crosses the current alignment of Dougherty Road between Willow Creek Drive and Wildwood Road. Given that the project does not involve the construction of any new buildings or structures and merely widens an existing roadway already traversed by a special study zone, the project would not result in any substantial risk exposure to people or structures. Therefore, the project would have a less- than - significant impact due to exposure of people or structures to earthquake faults. No mitigation is required. a. ii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less - than - Significant Impact. Earthquakes along several active faults (referenced above) in the region could cause moderate to severe ground shaking due to the project site's location in a seismically active region. Given that the project does not involve the construction of any new buildings or structures and merely widens an existing roadway within a seismically active region, 16 US Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region Geology, Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, August 18, 2006. Accessed July 2012. <i7tt:�: eow77a:�:�s.wr.us s. ov sf eo li uefa:�ctiow� susce.�tikrilit .i7tw771> Y ................ k.........//. g................................. k............................................. g.......... g.............../.......... g.............../....... q....................................................../................................................................... Y.............................. S 'Ii,l,(:iY o[1 gheily l,o ,(:i YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� the project would not result in any substantial new seismic ground- shaking risk to people or structures. Project impacts would thus be less- than - significant. No mitigation is required. a. iii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site is located within low to moderate liquefaction zones, with the exception of the area immediately surrounding Alamo Creek where there is high liquefaction hazard potential. The project would not encroach on the Alamo Creek area and the project geologic evaluation identified no special conditions necessary with regard to liquefaction potential. Therefore, project risks associated with liquefaction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. a. iv) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Less - than - Significant Impact. As noted in the project geologic evaluation, the project site and its immediate surroundings are relatively flat and do not contain steep slopes or hillsides that would be susceptible to landslides. The existing berm on the eastern edge of the project site is relatively low and does not constitute any significant landslide risk. Therefore, project risks related to landslides would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project entails grading and landscaping along the eastern edge of Dougherty Road, generally between the existing edge of pavement and the top of the existing berm. This area is currently not paved, with the exception of existing streets into Camp Parks and the existing pedestrian /bicycle path. When complete, the project would expand the paved width of Dougherty Road and would landscape substantial areas along the eastern edge, potentially up to the top of the berm. Substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss could occur if ground disturbance activities are not carefully managed. As required for all activities in the city involving substantial earth movement, the project will be required to implement all feasible BMPs included within the City of Dublin's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Adherence to these practices will minimize the potential for soil erosion or topsoil loss during construction, rendering project impacts to a less- than - significant level. No mitigation is required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? and d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in table 18 -1b of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project geologic evaluation concluded that potential substantial adverse effects related to landslides would not occur as the project site is within a topographically flat valley floor, does not contain steep slopes or hillsides susceptible to S (':iY 4 landslides, nor is the project site not mapped in an area with slope instability. However, the evaluation noted that the project may traverse soils with high plasticity and relatively low resistivity values. The evaluation identified mitigation to address potential effects related to soil instability. Mitigation Measure GEO -1: A qualified geotechnical engineer shall identify appropriate pavement types for project site soil conditions. The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into final design plans. Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would reduce potential impacts related to unstable soils to a less- than - significant level. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The project does not entail the installation or use of any septic tanks or wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 4,1a V11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have ❑ ❑ ❑ F-1 a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ gases? Project Setting An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment for the project was conducted by Illingworth and Rodkin in July 2012. The report is included as Appendix B. Methodology As described under Section III Air Quality, Impact C, emissions from construction and operation of the project were modeled using proposed construction equipment, anticipated phasing information and project traffic information. These modeling tools provide emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas emitted from construction equipment and trucks and future vehicles on Dougherty Road. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment report uses the thresholds and methodologies from BAAQMD's May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing environment. In June 2010, the BAAQMD Board of Directors adopted new CEQA thresholds of significance as part of a larger BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document. In subsequent litigation, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were determined to be a project under CEQA; BAAQMD was duly ordered to rescind these Guidelines pending completion of environmental review per CEQA. The preparers of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment have reviewed the evidence used to formulate the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines including BAAQMD's May 2010 staff report recommending the adoption of the thresholds and its S (':iY attachments, and conclude that substantial evidence supports the use of BAAQMD's 2010 thresholds of significance as thresholds of significance for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts in this IS /MND.17 This analysis utilized the BAAQMD GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) to determine whether the project would result in a significant level of GHG emissions. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction Emissions: CO2 emissions from project construction and hauling activities would be 307 MT of CO2 during the entire construction period, generally regardless of phasing. The emissions would be below the lowest threshold considered by BAAQMD. Operational Emissions: Table 4 presents the results of the emissions analysis in terms of annual metric tons of equivalent CO2 emissions (MT of CO2e /yr) from project operation. These are the daily emissions occurring along the project portion of the roadway. As shown in Table 4 below, operation of the Far -Term Plus Project condition minus emissions from the Existing condition would be 990 MT CO2e /yr. Much of this increase would be caused by cumulative growth in traffic on the project site that would occur with or without the project. In any case, the increase in emissions over existing conditions would be less than the threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e /yr. Table 4. Annual Project GHG Emissions Scenario COze Existing — 2012 Emissions in metric tons per year 8,812 Existing Plus Project - 2012 Emissions in metric tons per year 8,858 Maximum Net Increase 46 BAAQMD Thresholds 1,100 Exceed? No Far -Term Plus Project - 2025 Emissions in metric tons per year 9,802 Maximum Net Increase 990 BAAQMD Thresholds 1,100 Exceed? No Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012 17 BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines and May 2010 staff report are available for review at <http: / /www.baagmd.gov/ Divisions /Planning- and - Research /CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx >. ;fI b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. In October 2012, the City of Dublin adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that commits to reducing GHG emissions by 20 percent below business -as -usual GHG emissions by 2020. The CAP meets the intent of the AB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act) GHG reduction mandate. The project would not conflict with initiatives set forth in the CAP, nor would it interfere with any plan or regulation intended to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 'z:I... �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. 52 Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements V111. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous El ❑ ❑ ❑ materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ® ❑ ❑ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter El ❑ ❑ ❑ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would it create a ❑ ❑ El ❑ significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ plan? 1If 1'T S 'Ii,l,o`iY D'ol"�gh '11'y l "oa"m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� YlI'.t h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ F-1 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Project Setting Geocon Consultants ( Geocon) prepared an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) of the project site. This report is included as Appendix F. The ISA was prepared to determine the potential presence of hazardous materials. The ISA concluded that the project site includes several properties with potentially contaminated soils /groundwater from previous uses. A summary of this information is provided below. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. The project would not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its operations. Construction of the project would require the temporary use of potentially hazardous materials, such as fuels and solvents needed for earth - moving equipment. The transport and use of such materials is highly controlled by numerous existing federal and state regulations. Construction also requires the excavation of soils, some of which could contain hazardous materials. This matter is address under item b) and Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 below. Given the nature of the project and with adherence to Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, the project would not create a significant impact or hazard to the public or the environment associated with hazardous materials. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The ISA found the following potential sources of soil contamination, which could pose a threat to construction workers during project grading and site preparation. • Aerially deposited lead and petroleum hydrocarbons from automotive emissions and traffic may have impacted soils along the unpaved east shoulder of Dougherty Road. • Historical uses and operation of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), which crossed the project site at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive prior to the mid - 1980s, could have potentially released hazardous materials as ballast or as herbicide weed control. S (':iY • The Kinder Morgan Energy petroleum pipeline that crosses the southern portion of the site at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive could have potentially released petroleum hydrocarbon into the soil and impacted the site. Due to the proximity of these potentially contaminated sites and materials, the ISA (Appendix F) recommends a Phase II preliminary site investigation consisting of soil sampling for hydrocarbons, metals, and herbicides. Adherence to the recommendations of the Phase II investigation will ensure worker safety as well as the safe disposition and disposal of any hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Phase II site investigation shall be conducted to sample the soils on the project site to ascertain the extent of potential environmental impairments and to establish appropriate protocols for the collection and safe disposal of any contaminated soils and /or groundwater. All recommended remediation, soil material management, and /or disposal protocols of the Phase II investigation shall be conditions of project approval. Mitigation Measure HAZ -2: To avoid or minimize conflicts with the existing Kinder Morgan Energy petroleum pipeline, contractors and the City of Dublin shall coordinate closely with Kinder Morgan Energy in the development of final design plans. Project contractors shall notify Kinder Morgan Energy in advance of any planned excavation at or near the petroleum pipeline. If necessary, the City shall encase /protect pipelines to minimize any possible conflict. Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ -2 would reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. No schools are located within one - quarter mile of the project site. Valley High School is located approximately 1/2 mile from the project site at 6901 York Drive. Moreover, the project would not routinely emit hazardous emissions and would not result in any increase in the handling of hazardous materials, beyond the potential for such handling during project construction (see Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 above). No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. The project site is not included on the "Cortese" list of hazardous materials site (compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5). However, as noted above, soils underlying the project site may include low levels of potentially hazardous substances. Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 would reduce all soil - related impacts to a less- than - significant level. No impact would occur. No mitigation is required. S (:iy o[t ,heil,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? and f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. None of the project site is located within an airport land use plan and there is no airport located within 2 miles. The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 6 miles east of the project site, south of the 1 -580 freeway. Owing to this distance, the project would not entail any safety hazard related to airport /airstrip proximity. No impact would occur. No mitigation would be required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. Fire and emergency services in the City of Dublin are provided by Alameda County Fire Department and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. The project would expand overall mobility in the area by adding travel lanes to Dougherty Road. Emergency access is also addressed in Section XVI, Transportation (item e). For more than two decades, the City's General Plan Circulation Element has reflected the City's intent to build out Dougherty Road as a divided six -lane road with bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities. Other related City planning documents and environmental reviews have taken into account the ultimate buildout of Dougherty Road. Therefore, the project would not interfere with any emergency plans. Project impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the City of Dublin. There are no wildlands adjacent to, within, and /or intermixed with existing residences near the project site. As result, the project would not expose people or structures to wildfire hazards. No wildland fire impact would occur. No mitigation is required. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level e.g., the production rate of pre- existing ❑ ❑ ❑ nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ El provide substantial additional sources of polluted run -off? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑ ❑ ❑ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1111 gal `'a'l1,l,fmi`i 'o[_1 h('1"I'y F"'oa"o`m YY1C.tYf)l4 YY1� Y11'.t 15, 7 .. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the ❑ ❑ ❑ failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Setting Qualified hydrologists at WRECO prepared a Water Quality Report and a Location Hydraulic Study for the project site. These reports are included as Appendix G and Appendix H respectively. There are no stream crossings within the project limits. Stormwater runoff from the project site is channeled through the Alamo Creek, Cabot Canal and an unnamed canal to the Alamo Canal. Alamo Canal is a tributary of Alameda Creek, which discharges into San Francisco Bay. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determines areas with potential effects attributed to flood hazards. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is within Flood Zone X, which has a 0.2 percent annual chance of encountering a damaging flood (in other words, a damaging flood every 500 years). No portion of the project is located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? and f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less - than - Significant Impact. Ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the project could cause soil erosion or result in suspended solids entering area waterways. As the project would create more than one acre of new impervious area, it would be subject to the requirements of the City's NPDES permit, or Construction General Permit (CGP), and must submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board. The project would also be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). These requirements include incorporation of BMPs to limit illicit discharges of (potentially contaminated) stormwater during construction, BMP implementation, visual and analytical results from monitoring and sampling activities, and corrective actions taken to ensure compliance with the CGP. The project would be required to comply with the City's BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control during the construction period, as outlined in the NPDES permit. Because the project creates or replaces more than 1 acre of impervious surface, it is further regulated under the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The MRP requires placement of permanent S (':iY stormwater treatment facilities and hydromodification mitigation measures. Compliance with these permits addresses both short -term and long -term impacts to avoid, minimize or mitigate sediment and suspended solids impacts to Alamo Creek, Cabot Canal, and Alamo Canal. The project would be designed and constructed to comply with all water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. To minimize the off -site transport of pollutants, a substaRtial pekieH of stormwater runoff from the northbound lanes within the project site would be collected via vegetated bioswales in the new roadway median to infiltrate and treat stormwater prior to entering the City's storm drain system. Source control measures such as stormwater conveyance system stenciling /signage and efficient irrigation will be included in the project design to eliminate pollutant contact with stormwater. Therefore, project implementation with the proposed storm management facilities; would not violate water quality standards to degrade the water quality level on the project site. Impacts would be less- than - significant and no mitigation is required. b) Deplete groundwater? No Impact. No groundwater wells or springs, or existing or planned land uses requiring the use of groundwater supplies, have been identified on the project site. The project would not introduce any new wells or other features that would draw upon groundwater. Although the project would increase the paved width of Dougherty Road, project stormwater control features developed in compliance with the MRP would implement permanent stormwater treatment BMPs that would promote infiltration within the project limits. Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater but would instead increase the potential for groundwater recharge relative to existing conditions. No mitigation is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? Less - than - Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would not adversely change the existing drainage patterns on the project site or immediately surrounding area. The project does not propose any work that would alter the existing course of any nearby creek, canal, or culvert. Existing culverts may be extended and /or replaced and new culverts would likely be installed as part of this project to accommodate the proposed roadway geometry, but the existing drainage pattern would not change. Drainage design would aim to prevent water surface elevations and velocities from exceeding existing conditions, or exceeding the capacity of the existing downstream facilities at the boundary of the project site. Long -term erosion and sediment controls would be addressed with the placement of permanent treatment BMPs, and short -term erosion and sediment controls would be addressed with construction site BMPs. These BMPs would be implemented to ensure that erosion and sediment would be minimized or mitigated. Therefore, this impact would be less- than - significant and no mitigation is required. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? Less - than - Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would not substantially change the existing drainage pattern on the project site. The project does not propose any work that would alter the existing course of Alamo Creek, Cabot Canal, and Alamo Canal. While the project would add approximately 9 acres of additional impervious surface area, the additional contribution to the Alamo Canal watershed is minimal. The project would also comply with the MRP and all required hydromodification mitigation to minimize the rate and amount of surface runoff discharging to receiving water bodies. Hydromodification mitigation will be designed with the goal of maintaining preconstruction stormwater discharge flows by metering or detaining these flows prior to discharging to a receiving water body. Therefore, impacts of the project to drainage patterns and run -off resulting in flooding would be less- than - significant and no mitigation is required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run -off? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project would increase the total impervious surface area within its limits, and therefore, would increase the volume of stormwater runoff. Existing drainage facilities within the project site may be extended, replaced, repaired, and /or improved as necessary to provide proper offsite and roadway drainage. Furthermore, the project includes construction of vegetated bioswales that would reduce retain stormwater run -off before allowing it to slowly infiltrate into the ground. In compliance with MRP requirements, stormwater treatment BMPs and hydromodification mitigation measures will be included where practicable. The stormwater treatment BMPs would prevent polluted runoff from impacting Alamo Creek, Cabot Canal, and Alamo Canal by promoting infiltration, retention and filtration of pollutants and the hydromodification mitigation measures would allow for metering or detaining run -off. Through compliance with required measures, the impacts of the project on stormwater drainage systems and polluted run -off would be less- than - significant and no mitigation is required. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? and h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? and i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. According to the FEMA flood maps for the project site (dated August 3, 2009), the project site does not include any 100 -year flood hazard area. The project does not include the development of any habitable structures and therefore would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, the project would not expose people, property, or structures to flooding related to hazards and there would be no impact related to flooding and flooding hazards. No impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. S (':iY ��tl j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is located approximately 14 miles from the San Francisco Bay and approximately 33 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Due to the distance from these bodies of water, the project site would not be subject to inundation by an ocean - generated seiche or tsunami. Given the project site's relatively flat topography and distance from exposed hillside areas, the risk of mudflow inundating the site is remote. No impact would occur. No mitigation would be required. llfl',, :Sf,_�('m:i o[t ,heil,y R', r,(`m4 YY1C.tYr�l4 YY1� Yif� �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. G2 Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements X. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? Project Setting The City of Dublin sets forth allowable land uses in its General Plan and Zoning Code and their associated maps. The General Plan land use map (Figure 4) designates various land uses around the project site, including Retail /Office and Automotive, Business Park /Industrial and Outdoor Storage, Medium and High- Density Residential and Retail Office. The City has zoned much of the area around the project as "Planned Development" (Figure 3). Existing land uses in the immediate vicinity include institutional and residential uses on Camp Parks to the east, medium and high- density residential neighborhoods to the west, and a mix of medium /high- density residential, retail office, automotive and commercial uses in the southern portion of the project site. The project site is not located within an applicable Habitat Conservation Plan. a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The project would involve widening of an existing roadway, including enhanced bicycle facilities. Rather than physically dividing the established community, the project addresses congestion and circulation and improves bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by constructing Class II bicycle lanes that improve access to the Iron Horse Trail. The project would not otherwise present any physical disruption to the existing community. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. S (':iY b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant impact. The project is anticipated to require acquisition of additional right -of- way in front of a single commercial property (6305 Dougherty Road). The portion of this property anticipated for acquisition currently includes several parking spaces. Therefore, the project could result in a reduced number of parking spaces at this property. The removal of several parking spaces from this property would create an inconsistency with the amount of off - street parking called for under Section 8.76.080 of the City's Zoning Code. Off - street parking requirements are generally not considered to be regulations "adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." Moreover, relevant case law and the CEQA Guidelines stand for the proposition that a mere inconsistency with legislative parking requirements is not on its face a physical impact on the environment.18 Commercial off - street parking requirements are primarily intended to enhance the convenience of business patrons and owners, with an ancillary purpose of reducing secondary physical effects such as traffic, noise, and air quality effects related to a substantial number of vehicles circling excessively in order to find a parking space. Here, the project's proposed right -of -way acquisition would not remove all parking spaces from the affected property. Existing off - street parking located elsewhere on the property would not be affected by the proposed right -of -way acquisition and would thus remain available for patrons and employees. In addition, existing on- street parking on Houston Place, north of this property, would remain and would not be affected by the proposed project. Given the small scale of project's impact on off - street parking and that off - street would remain, a significant secondary effect (e.g. traffic, noise, air quality) would not occur. Land uses surrounding the project site are zoned as Residential and Commercial /Industrial. The project is part of the City of Dublin's General Plan and its most recent Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, the project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted by an agency to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. No mitigation is required. 18 The California Court of Appeal has held that parking is not part of the permanent physical environment, that parking conditions change over time as people change their travel patterns, and that the adequacy of parking related to a project need not be considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA unless it would cause significant secondary effects (see San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. the City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656). Similarly, the December 2009 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines (which became effective March 18, 2010) removed parking from the State's Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines) as an environmental factor to be considered under CEQA. S 'Ii,l,(:i o[f gheilfir =.rr,o`m4 YY1i.tYr�!4 YY1� Y1I� 'f c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. The project site is not located within any habitat conservation plan area or any natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. This page intentionally left blank. �nitia�Study DuugheilyRuad�mpruvements X1. Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of ❑ ❑ ❑ the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ ❑ plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Project Setting The Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan states that the City does not contain any areas of mineral extraction. Classification of an area as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) by the California Geological Survey /Department of Conservation indicates the existence of a deposit that meets certain criteria for value and marketability. MRZ classifications are as follows: • MRZ -1 is an area with no significant mineral deposits or little likelihood that such deposits exist; • MRZ -2 is an area with significant mineral deposits or high likelihood that such deposits exist; • MRZ -3 is an area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data; and • MRZ -4 is an area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone. The Department of Conservation has classified the project site in the MRZ -1 category with no significant mineral deposits. 19 19 California Geological Survey, 1983. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco Monterey Bay Area, Part II: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas, South San Francisco Bay Production Consumption Region, Special Report 146, Part II. f5 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource? and b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site? No impact. The project site is currently developed and not used for mineral recovery. Moreover, no known mineral resources are known to occur within the project limits. Therefore, project construction and implementation would result in no impact to mineral resource availability or recovery. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. llf l',, :Sf'- �('m:i 'o[-i ,heil''y F"'.oa"(:4 YY1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Y1f� X11. Noise Would the project a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of the other agencies? b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ F-1 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ area to excessive noise levels? Project Setting Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. prepared a Noise Assessment for the project site, which includes details of the analysis and provides background information on how noise and vibration are measured. The Noise Assessment is included in its entirety as (Appendix 1). S (':iY Project Site Noise Noise - sensitive land uses are located both west and east of Dougherty Road within the project study limits. The majority of these are residential land uses that are shielded by terrain or existing noise barriers. In addition, Alamo Creek Park and the Park Sierra outdoor use area on North Avenue are located proximate to Dougherty Road. A noise monitoring survey was conducted to quantify ambient noise levels at representative noise - sensitive locations adjacent to Dougherty Road .20 The monitoring survey occurred between 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 and 11:00 a.m. on Friday, June 22, 2012. Noise levels were measured at eight locations. Two of the eight measurements were long -term, i.e., 48 hours in duration (LT -1 and LT -2), and were made to quantify the daily trend in noise levels along Dougherty Road. The six remaining noise measurements were short -term, i.e., ten minutes in duration (ST -1 through ST -6). The monitoring locations are shown as Figure 10. Noise measurement locations LT -1 and LT -2 were selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels along Dougherty Road. Table 5 below summarizes noise levels at these locations. Noise measurement locations were selected to quantify traffic noise levels generated by Dougherty Road at existing receivers in the vicinity of the project site. The day -night average noise level was found to be on average 1 dBA higher than the p.m. peak hour average noise level at both long -term measurement locations. The daily distribution of noise levels at LT -1 and LT -2 are summarized in Attachment B of Appendix I. Table 5. Long Term Noise Measurement Results Long Term Noise Measurement Hourly Average Day -Night Average Location Noise Levels Noise Levels dBA Leg dBA Ldn LT -1 - Alamo Creek Park, 55-70 70 (approximately 75 feet from the center of the roadway) LT -2 — Park Sierra at North Avenue 57-70 71 (approximately 55 feet from the center of the roadway) Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012. 20 Noise measurements were made using Larson -Davis Model 820 integrating sound level meters fitted with precision microphones and windscreens. The sound level measuring assemblies were calibrated before and after the noise monitoring survey, and the response of the systems were always found to be within 0.2 dB of the calibrated level. No calibration adjustments were made to the measured noise levels. S 'Ii,l,(':iY f1���1��Y'I`��F =.rr�o`m4 YY1i.tYr�!4 YY1� Y1I� 7( .. Short -term noise measurements were conducted at six additional locations (ST -1 through ST -6) and the results are summarized in Table 6 below. Table 6. Short Term Noise Measurement Results Short Term Noise Measurement Location Noise Level (dBA) (Date —Time of Noise Measurement) Est. Leq L(1) L(io) L(so) L(go) Ldn ST -1— Tralee Townhomes eastern fagade, Dougherty Road between Sierra Lane and Dublin Boulevard. 68 80 71 64 58 72 (6/20/12, 11:00 a.m. — 11:10 a.m.) ST -2 — Iron Horse Trail Apartments, 6233 Dougherty Road, western fagade. 66 76 70 63 55 69 (6/20/12, 11:00 a.m. — 11:10 a.m.) ST -3 — 6391 Sussex Court, western fagade. 60 69 63 57 47 61 (6/20/12, 11:50 a.m. — 12:00 p.m.) ST -4 — Approximately 15 feet from curb of Dougherty Road south of Amador Valley Boulevard. 71 80 74 69 54 73 (6/20/12, 12:36 p.m. — 12:46 p.m.) ST -5 — Cottonwood Circle apartments, eastern fagade, approximately 8 feet lower in elevation than Dougherty Road. 53 60 57 52 47 55 (6/20/12, 12:10 p.m. — 12:20 p.m.) ST -6 — Chantilly Drive townhomes, parking lot. 57 66 60 55 51 58 (6/20/12, 11:40 a.m. — 11:50 a.m.) Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of the other agencies? Less - than - significant impact. The project involves adding additional lanes and other improvements to an existing roadway /right -of -way and would not include land uses that would expose additional noise - sensitive receptors. Demolition and construction activities necessary to implement the project would generate noise. The Dublin Municipal Code, however, does not contain quantitative noise limits regulating construction noise. Construction would occur during the daytime and would proceed along the 7':I... project alignment thereby only affecting receptors or groups of receptors over a period of time. Construction noise would not be considered prolonged, unusual, or unnatural in their time or place and would not be a detriment to the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity of the residents of the city. Therefore, the project would have a less- than - significant impact on exposure of persons to or generation of noise. No mitigation is necessary. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less - than - significant impact. Project construction activities with the greatest potential of generating perceptible vibration levels would include the removal of existing pavement, concrete, or soil, the movement of heavy equipment, and vibratory compacting of roadway base materials. Equipment anticipated during project construction would include backhoes, excavators, dump trucks, front -end loaders, asphalt pavement grinders, compacting equipment, asphalt pavers, concrete trucks and various passenger vehicles. Vibration levels expected with varying pieces of construction equipment needed during project construction would typically range from 0.003 in /sec PPV to 0.210 in /sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Construction activities that generate higher vibration levels, such as impact or vibratory pile driving, would not be expected with the project. Project construction activities would typically occur at distances of 30 feet or greater from the nearest sensitive residential structures. At this distance, vibration levels would be expected to range from 0.002 in /sec PPV to 0.160 in /sec PPV. and would not exceed the 0.3 in /sec PPV significance criteria. Construction hours are assumed to occur during the daytime only, thus reducing potential for residential annoyance during typical periods of rest or sleep. Therefore, construction activities for the project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration at residences in the vicinity and would have a less- than - significant impact and no mitigation is necessary. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less - than - significant impact. The project involves adding two additional travel lanes to an existing roadway and modifying the alignment of the roadway, but would not involve any new land uses that would create additional trips. In some cases, travel lanes would move closer to noise - sensitive receivers along the project alignment, however, noise levels would not be substantially increased. S (':iY As part of the Noise Assessment (Appendix 1), traffic noise modeling was conducted to calculate existing and existing plus project noise levels as well as the change in noise levels expected as a result of the road widening.21 The results of the noise modeling indicate that noise level increases with the project would be 2 dBA Ldn or less at receivers along the project corridor (Appendix I, Table 6). Noise level increases of 3d BA Ldn or less are typically not perceptible. The projected noise level increases would not exceed the significance criteria established for the project. Therefore, the project would have a less- than - significant impact on permanent ambient noise levels and no mitigation measures are required. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less - than - significant impact. The construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential receptors. Construction equipment would likely include backhoes, excavators, dozers, dump trucks, front -end loaders, scrapers, graders, compacting equipment, asphalt pavers and rollers, and various passenger vehicles. Noise impacts resulting from roadway construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially when heavy equipment is used. At times, these activities would occur immediately adjacent to residential receivers. The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 90 to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction - generated noise levels are about 79 dBA to 88 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods. Interior noise levels would be as high as 68 dBA inside (assuming the windows are shut). The noise levels would be high enough to potentially interfere with conversation in rooms facing the road. During other construction activities, noise levels would be lower but could still potentially interfere with indoor and outdoor activities. Construction - generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding provided by buildings should result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. Construction noise impacts often occur when construction activities take place during noise - sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when construction activities occur immediately adjacent to noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over 21 Traffic noise levels were modeled with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM version 2.5). The traffic noise model was calibrated to measure conditions documented during the noise monitoring survey using concurrent traffic counts and vehicle mix, and then used to calculate traffic noise levels with implementation of the project. S 'Ii,l,(:i o[f gheilfir =.rr,o`m4 YY1i.tYr�!4 YY1� Y1I� 7 extended periods of time. Noise - intensive construction activities are assumed to occur only during daytime hours (e.g., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), which would reduce the potential for construction noise impacts. Construction of the planned roadway improvements would result in temporary noise level increases at sensitive receivers along the project alignment. Construction activities would generally move along the right -of -way as construction proceeds, and the overall construction duration would be limited to two construction windows. Therefore, the project would have a less- than - significant impact on substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. e) Located within an airport land use plan? and f) Located within the vicinity of a private airstrip? No Impact. The closest public airport is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 6 miles east of the project site, south of the 1 -580 freeway. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airport. Owing to this distance from air facilities, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a public or private airstrip. No mitigation is required. 74 X111. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly, (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ 1'71 El (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ El ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? Project Setting The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides growth projects for the San Francisco Bay Area counties and cities, including Alameda County and the City of Dublin. According to ABAG's Housing Projections 2009, the City's population was 49,000. The city's population is expected to increase to 62,800 by 2020 and 83,600 by 2035. a) Induce substantial population growth? Less - than - significant impact. The project would not directly induce any substantial population growth because it does not include new housing units (that could increase population) or any new commercial space that could facilitate job growth. The addition of two travel lanes, bus stops, and bicycle lanes to the Dougherty Road corridor would not foreseeably lead to any indirect job or population growth. Rather, the project has long been planned as a means to accommodate existing development and planned growth in the immediate area. In all, the project would have a less- than - significant effect with regard to inducement of substantial population growth. No mitigation is necessary. 7`z .. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? and c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. The project does not entail any displacement of any existing housing units. All of the land to be incorporated into the roadway would come from the east side of the corridor. Some land acquisition is required to complete the project, but all of this land would come from commercial or institutional uses. Therefore, the project would result in no displacement of people or housing units. No mitigation is required. 7f,3 XIV. Public Services Would the project a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Setting Fire protection services in the City of Dublin are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. There are three fire stations in the City, served by 36 line personnel. Police services for the City are performed under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. The project site is located within the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) which serves the City of Dublin with three K -5 schools, one 6 -8 school, one high school, and one continuation high school. The City of Dublin's Fall Creek Park is immediately adjacent to the project site. 77 .. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection impacts? and ii) Police protection impacts? and iii) School impacts? and iv) and v) Parks and Other facilities? No impact. The project involves adding additional lanes to an existing roadway and expanded bicycle facilities. The project would result in no direct and no foreseeably indirect increase in demand for fire or police protection. Accordingly, the project would not result in any need to increase fire or police personnel or expand any fire or police protection facilities. Moreover, as the project involves no increase in the number of housing units, the project would not directly introduce any new students to the area school population. As such, the project would result in no impacts to school facilities. Along similar lines, the project would not foreseeably increase the number of users of parks and public facilities, while the project adds bicycle facilities to Dougherty Road; the project area already has such facilities. The project would not foreseeably increase park usage such that new or altered park or public facilities would be required. No mitigation is required. XV. Recreation Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an ❑ ❑ ❑ adverse physical effect on the environment? Project Setting The City of Dublin's Fall Creek Park is immediately adjacent to the project site. The City has an extensive network of park and recreational facilities, including the existing pedestrian /bicycle path immediately east of Dougherty Road. This path provides a connection to the regional Iron Horse Recreational Trail, which crosses the project site near Scarlett Drive. a) Increase use of existing recreational facilities? No Impact. As the project involves only the widening of Dougherty Road, the project would result in no foreseeable increased use of existing recreational facilities. The project does not include a residential component and would therefore not induce any direct or indirect population increase. As a result, the project would not result in a substantial increase in use of neighborhood and regional parks or other existing recreation facilities which would lead to accelerated physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Include /require construction of new recreational facilities? No Impact. The project includes two new Class II (on- street) bicycle lanes along Dougherty Road. These will enhance bicycle travel through and near the project site, particularly since the project site traverses the Iron Horse Regional Trail, a prominent regional recreational resource. This document analyzes and discloses all such effects related to the project. No other aspect of the project directly or indirectly includes or requires new or expanded recreational facilities. No impact would occur. No mitigation would be required. S (':iY 7 This page intentionally left blank. �nitia�Study DuugheilyRuad�mpruvements XV1. Transportation and Traffic Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel ❑ ❑ ® El and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards El ❑ ® El by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ performance or safety of such facilities? Project Setting Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. prepared a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in May 2012, included herein as Appendix J. The TIS evaluated project impacts to traffic conditions on intersections in the project vicinity, emergency service access, as well as transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. llf l',, :Sf'_�('m:i Syr 'ol"i h '11'y F"'.oa"(:4 YY1C.tYr �l4 YY1� Yif� Regional and Local Access The following is a brief description of roadways that provide access to the City and the project site: Amador Valley Boulevard is a two -lane collector street that joins Dougherty Road with San Ramon Road, with much of the boulevard separated by landscape medians. Amador Valley Boulevard near Dougherty Road is bordered by single - family and multifamily residential units. Dublin Boulevard is a major east -west arterial. West of Dougherty Road, it is a four- to six - lane divided road fronted principally by retail and commercial uses. East of Dougherty Road, it is a six -lane divided arterial fronted largely by residential, commercial uses, and vacant land. 0 Fall Creek Drive is a two -lane residential street serving homes on the west side of Dougherty Road. Fall Creek Drive and Willow Creek Drive are the only access points to the neighborhood. 0 Houston Place is a two -lane residential street which also serves commercial uses on the south side of the roadway. Interstate 580 (1 -580) is an eight -lane, east -west freeway that connects Dublin with nearby cities of Pleasanton and Livermore that also provides regional connections to greater Oakland and the Central Valley. 1 -580 has an interchange with Dougherty Road south of the project site. Mariposa Drive is a two -lane residential street serving future homes in the new Emerald Vista development on the west side of Dougherty Road. The city plans to install a traffic signal at this intersection which will also serve as the future entrance to the Camp Parks. Monterey Drive is a two -lane residential street serving future homes in the new Emerald Vista development on the west side of Dougherty Road. Scarlett Drive is a two -lane residential street serving homes on the east and west sides of Dougherty Road. The Iron Horse bikeway parallels this segment of Scarlett Drive. The bikeway provides a connection between the East Dublin BART station and the communities to the north, including San Ramon, Danville, and Walnut Creek. Sierra Lane is a two -lane collector street serving residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. Sierra Lane provides secondary access to commercial properties along Dougherty Road. Ventura Drive is a two -lane residential street serving future homes in the new Emerald Vista development on the west side of Dougherty Road. 8 2 Wildwood Road is a two -lane residential street serving homes on the west side of Dougherty Road. Willow Creek Drive is a two -lane residential street serving homes on the west side of Dougherty Road. Willow Creek Drive and Fall Creek Drive are the only access points to the immediate neighborhood. Transit Facilities The Livermore Amador Valley Transit District (LAVTA) provides bus transit service to the tri- valley communities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. LAVTA's fixed -route transit service "Wheels," operates Routes 3, 3V and 202 along the project corridor. These routes provide connections to many locations in Dublin and to other local and regional transit routes. Existing transit stops on located on the project corridor are as follows: 0 Northbound Dougherty Road north of Houston Place Southbound Dougherty Road south of Mariposa Drive (includes a bus pullout) Southbound Dougherty Road north of Sierra Lane. The County Connection provides bus connection between the East Dublin BART station and the San Ramon Transit Center in Bishop Ranch via Route 35 along Dougherty Road. County Connection provides fixed -route and paratransit bus service throughout most of Central Contra Costa County. There is a County Connection bus stop (route 35) on the project corridor at Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities A shared Class I bike /pedestrian path runs along the east side of Dougherty Road between Sierra Lane and Scarlett Drive, connecting with the Iron Horse Trail near Scarlett Drive. Class 11 bike lanes are present on Dougherty Road between Scarlett Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard. Sidewalks are present on the west side of Dougherty Road through the entire length of the project site. On the east side of Dougherty Road, there are sidewalks between Sierra Lane and Scarlett Drive. North of Scarlett Drive, pedestrians may use the Class I bike path. Significance Criteria In addition to the criteria set forth in Appendix G of the CECA Guidelines (included in the checklist above), the City of Dublin strives to phase development and roadway improvements such that level of service (LOS) at all intersections does fall below LOS D. The LOS of each intersection qualitatively describes the operations of the transportation facility. Level of service ranges from LOS A, indicating free - flowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, representing oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. LOS E describes conditions at capacity. Study Intersections The TIS analyzed potential traffic impacts at 21 intersections along the project site. Study intersections are listed in Table 7. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y ',o ,(:i YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Yif� Condition Scenarios Traffic conditions were assessed based on the following "No Build" and "Build" development conditions: Near -term 2015 conditions without the project: The 2015 analysis corresponds with the approximate completion date of the project and is based on future traffic projections that include anticipated growth and other planned roadway projects. Far -term 2025 conditions without the project: The year 2025 analysis represents buildout traffic conditions for the area based upon available traffic forecasts from the Dublin Traffic Model (DTM) combined with information from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) travel forecast model. The scenario includes roadway projects (excluding this Dougherty Road project) anticipated to be in place at the same time of the 2025 forecast horizon. Near -term 2015 plus project traffic conditions: The near -term plus project analysis corresponds to the lane geometry and volumes predicted for opening day in 2015, combined with the Dougherty Road project. Far -term 2025 plus project traffic conditions: The far -term plus project analysis corresponds to the lane geometry and volumes predicted for 2025, combined with the project. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project would increase road capacity by adding two travel lanes to an existing four lane roadway and would include construction of a landscaped median and on- street bicycle lanes. The project would not directly cause any new trip generation and thus would not increase the amount of traffic. Therefore, the project would not increase traffic volumes in relation to existing conditions. The City of Dublin General Plan standards require that the City strive to maintain a level of service (LOS) of D or better at all intersections. A project that would cause the LOS at an intersection currently operating at an acceptable level to exceed the acceptable levels, or that would worsen the condition at an intersection currently operating at below an acceptable level, would cause a significant impact. The Traffic Impact Study analyzed LOS conditions with the project in 2015 "near - term" (at the time of completion) and in 2025 "far- term" (cumulative) at twenty -one intersections that relate to the project corridor. Table 7 shows what level of service the twenty -one intersections would operate at in the near and far -term with and without the project. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� Table 7. Summary of Intersection Level of Service Calculations Study Intersection Near -term (2015) AM Peak Near -term (2015) PM Peak Far -term (2025) AM Peak Far -term (2025) PM Peak Base + Project Base + Project Base + Project Base + Project 1. Dougherty Road /Fall Creek Drive F/A C/A F/A B/A F/A C/A F/A B/A 2. Dougherty Road /Willow Creek Drive C B B A D B B A 3. Dougherty Road /Wildwood Road F/F B/A F/A A/A F/F B/A F/A A/A 4. Dougherty Road /Amador Valley Boulevard F C F C F E F C 5. Dougherty Road /Ventura Drive B/A B/A B/A A/A B/A B/A B/A A/A 6. Dougherty Road /S. Mariposa Drive B A D C B A D C 7. Dougherty Road /Monterey Drive C/A A/A B/A A/A C/A A/A B/A A/A 8. Dougherty Road /Scarlett Drive C B B B D C F E 9. Dougherty Road /Turbo Spa Driveway A/A A/A C/A A/A A/A A/A B/A A/A 10. Dougherty Road /Sherwin Williams Driveway A/A A/A F/A C/A A/A A/A F/A C/A 11. Dougherty Road /Performance Automotive Driveway A/A A/A D/A A/A A/A A/A C/A A/A 12. Dougherty Road /European Auto Driveway D/A B/A B/A B/A D/A B/A E/A A/A 13. Dougherty Road /Castle Plastics Driveway C/A B/A C/A A/A C/A B/A B/A A/A 14. Dougherty Road /Ironhorse Trail Apartments E/A B/A B/A B/A D/A B/A C/A A/A 15. Dougherty Road /Dublin Self Storage F/A B/A B/A A/A F/A B/A A/A A/A (Table continues on next page) $ `:a'I1,l,(`:iY � )f1�;i1�YI;`��F l,rt �o`mf, YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� YlI'.t Study Intersection Near -term Near -term Far -term (2025) Far -term (2025) (2015) AM Peak (2015) PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Base + Project Base + Project Base + Project Base + Project 16. Dougherty Road /Houston Place F/A A/A C/A B/A F/A A/A F/A B/A 17. Dougherty Road /Denica's E/A B/A B/A A/A D/A B/A B/A A/A Restaurant 18. Dougherty Road /Quality Tune Up A/A A/A B/A B/A A/A A/A B/A B/A 19. Dougherty Road /Mini Mart E/A C/A F/A C/A E/A C/A D/A C/A 20. Dougherty Road /Voss Materials A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A 21. Dougherty Road /Sierra Lane C C B C C C B C Note: Locations displaying two levels of service correspond to the worst approach LOS / average LOS for side-street stop-controlled intersections. Source: Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc., 2012 Overall, implementation of the project would not degrade level of service to an unacceptable degree. As shown in Table7 above, the project would in many cases improve intersection operations. Implementation of the project would improve the LOS of several intersections along Dougherty Road, including Amador Valley Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, Iron Horse Trail Apartments, and Sierra Lane. Therefore the project would not conflict with the City's established criteria and result in a less- than - significant impact. No mitigation is required. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less - than - Significant Impact. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) is the County's congestion management agency. Dougherty Road is designated by the Alameda CTC's Congestion Management Program (CMP) as a Principal Arterial in the Tier 2 Network. The project is consistent with the Alameda CTC's performance measures as identified in the CMP.22 Specific performance measures identified in the CMP with which the project is consistent include: 22 Alameda County Transportation Commission: Congestion Management Program 2011. (December 2011). < htt..@: �..:. �/ wwvv.:.=: �.. 1,<: �„ w77- es�-<: �.. L�. L..,. org/.<: �.. ��.......... k: 2. =:�..g�.�. /✓.w.�.��:`�..�..�.�. $ S 'Ii,l,(:i o[1 h '11,y l,o a,,o`m4 YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� S f,. • Improving travel time • Reducing duration of traffic congestion • Maintaining roadways • Completion of Countywide Bike Plan • Completion of Countywide Pedestrian Plan Moreover, as shown above, the project does not degrade the LOS standard criteria set forth by the City of Dublin. The project would therefore not result in any significant conflict with the applicable congestion management plan. No mitigation is required. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. There are no public or private air transportation facilities within the vicinity of the project site. The Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately six miles east of the project site, is the most proximate in location. The project site is not within the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission and is outside of any identified landing or noise - impacted zones. The project would thus have no impact to air traffic patterns. No mitigation is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (i.e., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (i.e., farm equipment)? Less - than - Significant Impact. The TIS analyzed vehicle queuing (in other words, the distance that vehicles will back up in each direction approaching an intersection) at each turn pocket along the corridor. Queues that extend 25 feet (one vehicle length), or more, beyond the turn pocket are considered a significant impact because they may create a hazardous condition. The TIS initially concluded that vehicle queuing at locations affected by the project are typically less than 25 feet beyond the turn pocket, except at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Sierra Lane. In the far -term plus project scenario, the eastbound left turn queue at the Dougherty Road /Sierra Lane intersection extends 83 feet beyond the turn pocket in the PM peak hour. The project creates 25 feet of the total queue. Since the project adds one car length to a queue that is greater than to one car length beyond the turn pocket at Dougherty Road and Sierra Lane (specifically at the eastbound left turn queue), vehicle queuing would be unacceptable. Accordingly, the project was revised to extend the eastbound left turn lane to 175 feet, such that vehicle queuing in this location would not result in any potential hazard. S (':iY 8 7 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less - than - Significant Impact. The construction of a center median as part of the project would result in alteration of existing traffic patterns by restricting some left turns out of side streets and eliminating left turns into and out of most driveways on Dougherty Road. However, as previously noted in Section VIII, Hazards, the City's General Plan Circulation Element has, for more than two decades, reflected the City's intent to build out Dougherty Road as a divided six -lane road with bicycle lanes and enhanced pedestrian facilities. Other related City planning documents and environmental reviews (including the recent environmental review for the KB Homes project (Emerald Vista) have acknowledged and found no significant access impact related to the ultimate buildout of Dougherty Road as a divided six -lane facility. Notwithstanding, the TIS examined potential emergency access changes along the corridor. The TIS noted that the placement of the median could, in some cases, require emergency vehicles to arrive from the opposite direction or make U- turns. The TIS found that five driveways and one public street are affected by the project's access changes. If an emergency vehicle needs to make a U -turn to reach its destination, its travel time may be incrementally increased by about 20 to about 50 seconds. Given the relative proximity of Alameda County Fire Department Stations and the Dublin Police Department to the Dougherty Road Corridor, this incremental increase is not considered a significant delay. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project involves adding additional lanes to Dougherty Road, which would improve travel time for transit vehicles using the corridor. The project would add capacity to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project would add on- street Class II bicycle lanes, to southbound and northbound traffic from Scarlett Drive to the north end of the corridor. The existing bicyclist /pedestrian path, which is separated from the roadway on the east side of Dougherty Road would remain. The continuous sidewalk on the west side of Dougherty Road would not be changed. The project is not expected to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities and would therefore have less- than - significant impacts. No mitigation is required. S (:iY o[t ,heil,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� XV11. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ❑ ❑ ❑ expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's ❑ ❑ ❑ projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ® ❑ waste? Project Setting The City of Dublin's water is distributed by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), purchased from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. According to the City's General Plan, the District imports water from the following sources: State water project, local runoff from the Arroyo Del Valle watershed (stored in Lake Del Valle) and from natural recharge of the groundwater basin. S (':iY R',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Yif� Wastewater from the City of Dublin is treated at DSRSD's Recycled Water Treatment Facilities (RWTF) in Livermore - Amador Valley. Disposal of treated wastewater is provided by the Livermore - Amador Valley Waste Management Agency (LAVWMA) facility. DSRSD supplies recycled water for landscape irrigation to 283 customers in the City of Dublin and Dougherty Valley.23 LAVWMA discharges treated sewage via the East Bay Dischargers Authority into San Francisco Bay. Stormwater runoff from the project site is channeled through the Alamo Creek, Cabot Canal and an unnamed canal to the Alamo Canal. Alamo Creek is a tributary of Alameda Creek. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for this project is required to be developed by the contractor and submitted to the City of approval prior to beginning construction. Amador Valley Industries provides solid waste collection, recycling and yard waste collection services for the City of Dublin. Solid waste from the City of Dublin is deposited at the Altamont Landfill in Livermore. The City of Dublin requires that all construction demolition projects recycle 100 percent of asphalt and concrete and divert at least 50 percent of all waste generated on a job site. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? and b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? and e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The project does not propose any residential, commercial, or other land uses that would generate wastewater or increase the demand for wastewater treatment. Therefore, there are no impacts related to exceeding wastewater treatment or need for construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facility. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would add approximately 9 acres of additional impervious surface area. Although the additional contribution to 23 Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2011). Accessed July 6, 2012. < i,tt:�: www.dsrsd.cow77 iw77 iw77 �ukrlica:�ti ns 201..0 LIWIVIP .Duw�e 201..1...:�df >. .................@........ Z/............................................................................. ..............................I ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............. @................ S 'Ii,l,(:i o[1 gheily l,o,o`m4 YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� 910 the Alamo Creek watershed is minimal, the project would comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program and all required hydromodification mitigation to minimize the rate and amount of surface runoff discharging to receiving water bodies. Hydromodification mitigation and drainage will be designed with the goal of maintaining preconstruction stormwater discharge flows by metering or detaining these flows prior to discharging to a receiving water body. As part of the project, existing culverts may be extended and /or replaced and new culverts may be installed to accommodate the proposed roadway geometry, but the existing drainage pattern would not change. Drainage design would aim to prevent water surface elevations and velocities from exceeding existing conditions, or exceeding the capacity of the existing downstream facilities at the boundary of the project site. Therefore, the project would not require construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities. No mitigation is required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not propose any residential, commercial, or other land uses that would consume significant amounts of water. Therefore, the project does not demand water supply services. The landscaped median would be landscaped with plants appropriate for a drainage Swale; these plantings are not expected to require significant supplemental watering once established. The landscaping would utilize plantings consistent with other City rights -of -way and would not require additional resources or expanded entitlements. No mitigation is required. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? and g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less - than - Significant Impact. The operation of the project would not generate solid waste. However, construction activities would generate construction waste from grading and excavation activities. The City of Dublin has an agreement with Amador Valley Industries for solid waste removal. Project construction must comply with the City of Dublin's Waste Management Plan, including submittal of a Waste Reduction and Recycling Form (WRRF). The WRRF must indicate whether a 50 percent divert rate of waste generated on the job site can be achieved .24 City Ordinance requires that 100 percent of concrete and asphalt be reused or recycled. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste are less- than - significant. No mitigation is required. 24 City of Dublin, Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Process. Accessed June 7, 2012. < 7... k: �..:.// c<.:::...... w..!: ?..:. Lw.✓.w.L.k:..!..:.cc� „!17../.C) ,c, ,w77, ,I,,t,C ..!:?. .. /.H.c� „!J 7.. /y.ieW /:.`- ...1::. >. S 'Ii,l,(:i o[1 gheily l,o ,(:i YY1i.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1I� c) :I. �nitia� Study This page intentionally left blank. 92 Duughe�yRuad�mpruvements XV111. Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: a) Have the potential to degrade quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ❑ ❑ ❑ El the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly? a) Have the potential to degrade quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation measures are provided that adequately protect habitat, wildlife populations, and plant and animal communities. Mitigation measures that would adequately protect a known historical resource and any currently unknown cultural resources that may be uncovered during project construction are also included herein. With this mitigation, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; affect habitat, fish, and wildlife species; or cultural resources. S (:iY o[t ;'I 'P1,y ',o,(`m4 YY1C.tYr �!4 YY1� Y1f� 91 b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed widening of Dougherty Road, transit and bicycle facility improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and were included as part of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. Through several certified environmental documents, incorporated herein by reference the City analyzed the effects of implementation of the impact fee program at a programmatic level. These documents are available for review at the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Therefore, the project would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts that were not previously identified in previously certified environmental documents. c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less - than - Significant Impact. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein would reduce all potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. The project would thus not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Doiuglhcirty R,D,ald Pirclicct an%A e San Ramon Gverm ore Source: Kimley-Nom and Associates, 2022 D 2 4 MILES Scale: 1:200,606 Project Location Do a ri gWr e urty IIRood IV m Iw:ru irra ve rn w r t s IP it o [e (A Legend EDProject StudyArea /Project Site Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Garcia and Associates, 2012 AL 0 1,000 2,000 FEET Scale: 1:14,000 Project Study Area Doughierty, IRoa d lrriqarovierrients Project r. rr R rN L f . . .. .. . .... V , I wr, en ti J J I PA 9P8 DO,9� r' �lllllllllllllllll E i %/ /Pam f,111 jijrdddfi T . ................ ..... . / / / /// , / F�� �, , ,rrr /,,, , ,r„ /r, r, /c riiii / P4�.40, 013,E H, .. . . ..... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .................. ...... . . . ............. .. . . . .................. . ... .... . .. .......... ...... .. ...... . . .... ....... ... ... . . . . ............ . . ................. ............ ............... ............. ... .............. " ........... . Legend - Project Study Area/Project Site A � �IfffffffffffffffffffffffffffoI Agriculture PD 011111il Planned Development C-2 General Commercial M-1 Light Industrial R-1 Single Family Residential (Minimum Lot Area) Source: City of Dublin, 2011. .25 MILES City of Dublin Zoning Map ty i'vo,old lilvq,'n crvenirents Proilelict Legend So uce: 0 ty of Dub fin, 2011 Project Study Area /Project Site Business Park/Industrial Parks/Public Recreation Business Park/Industrial and Outdorr Storage MILE Open Space Mixed Use Public Lands Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/aG) 0 25 .50 Public/Semi-Public MediurrVHigh-DesityResidentail and Retail Office MILES Retail /Office Medium-Density R esid enti al (6.1-14.0 du/aG) R et ai 1 /0 ff i ce a nd Auto moti ve JIM M ed i u rn,11H i g h -D e ns ity R es id enti a 1 (14.1-2 5. 0 d u/ac) Campus Office High - Density Residential (25.1 + du/aG) City of Dublin General Plan Map Land Use Map So uce: 0 ty of Dub fin, 2011 DougIheirty Road Ilirn''npiroveir'n'nei t Piroje( °:t MEDIAN � � � ".40TOY-7, VARIES SIDE BIKE LANE LANE LANE 4' MEDIAN LANE LANE LANE BIKE SIDE WALK LANE TAPER LANE WALK TRANSITION — R' -- R' -- 11 1Y -- 111' -- 111' -- A -1-Y — 11 ' — 111' -- 11 -V -Y- MEDIAN � & & VARIES SIDE BIKE LANE LANE LANE 4' MEDIAN LANE LANE LANE BIKE SIDE WALK LANE WITH 11' LANE WALK TURN LANE Not to Scale Typical Schematic Cross - Sections: Dougherty Road from Sierra Lane to Scarlett Drive Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., 2012. Dougheilr y Road IlirnlpiroveirneiM Piroje( °AU SIDE TURN LANE BIKE LANE LANE LANE TURN MEDIAN LANE LANE LANE BIKE WALK BIKE WALK /ARIES TO 01) LANE WITH 11' LANE VARIES PATH LANE PATH TURN LANE TO 15 -- d -iF' -- — 7' - 19 IV-1— R' -- 11 1Y -- 11 1Y -- 11 1Y -- 11 — A' -- 11 1Y -- 11 1Y -- 11 1Y -- R' - -- R' — Drains to Median SIDE BIKE LANE LANE LANE 4' MEDIAN LANE LANE LANE BIKE BIKE WALK LANE WITH 11' LANE PATH TURN LANE -- d -iF' -- 11 Drains to Median Not to Scale Typical Schematic Cross - Sections: Dougherty Road from Scarlett Drive to Amador Vallev Boulevard Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., 2012. Douglheirt:y Roaal Ilirn''npiroveir'n'neiutp Piroje( °:t: SIDE BIKE LANE LANE LANE 4' MEDIAN LANE LANE LANE BIKE BIKE WALK LANE WITH 11' LANE PATH TURN LANE TYPICAL 15' ­11-91 ' -- 11 Drains to Median Not to Scale Typical Schematic Cross - Sections: Dougherty Road from Amador Vallev Boulevard to North Citv Limits Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., 2012. Dougherty Road hiproveinents Flr¢a,yect Note: Please see figure 9 for cross sections called out below. A B C dra nage '� I L--+ l� �', 1 �—dra nage t— AB' - ,e C, meadow stream river birch grove sycamore stand river birch (bio retenwn area) one drainage basin TYPICAL MEDIAN LANDSCAPE PLAN (450 LINEAR FEET TYP.) Typical Median Landscape Plan Source: Kimley -Horn and ASSaclates, Inc., 2012. meadow stream ��' DOu"ugherty Road knpo"oveunents Po"e.Oct GROVE STREAM — CHANNEL • 4 -5" river cobble • 8 -12" tumbled river rock • 3- G' stone slabs (between transition areas) 18" city standard median paver band (typ.) River birch Betula nigro v GROVE UNDERSTORY • Purple three -awn KF Aristldapurpurea • 'Leather leaf' Coffeeberry Arotda purpurea ` Linseed Flax U'uumm Usaosslmum SECTION A -A': RIVER BIRCH GROVE A grove of river birch trees with evergreen understory forms a riparian habitat. SECTION B -B': SYCAMORE STAND Lined with sycamore trees this section express a parklike dry creek setting with California native shrubs. SECTION C -C': MEADOW STREAM (BIO RETENTION AREA) Composed of rushes, this area imitates a wetland habitat but is drought tolerant enough to handle California seasons. _ Median Concept: Sections Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., 2012. j", f, "AR sr X`14'111�171­11 California sycamore 1, to us racemoso SYCAMORE STAND UNDERSTORY I % / r'IN +4t iu ,k rr Cleveland sage ScNia M i1 A C—Prag ago STAND STREAM b CHANNEL 18" city standard 4-6" river cobble modian paver band (typ.) 8-12" t—bled river ... k 3-61 stone slabs (between li transition areas) SECTION B -B': SYCAMORE STAND Lined with sycamore trees this section express a parklike dry creek setting with California native shrubs. SECTION C -C': MEADOW STREAM (BIO RETENTION AREA) Composed of rushes, this area imitates a wetland habitat but is drought tolerant enough to handle California seasons. _ Median Concept: Sections Source: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., 2012. Do a ri gWr e it Ly IIRood IV rwi Iw:ru iro ve rn e r t s IP r o [e (A Proj Legend Measurement /Receiver Locations Additional Receiver Locations Measurement -Only Locations AL 0 1,000 2,000 FEET Scale: 1:14,060 Project Vicinity and Noise Measurement /Modeling Locations Source: Bing, Mingworth R Rod0n, fnc., 2012. DOUGHERTY ROAD PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Air Quality The project is not likely to Significant Mitigation Measure AQ -1: During demolition or any construction expose sensitive receptors Unless ground disturbance, implement measures to control dust and to substantial pollutant Mitigation exhaust. The contractor shall implement the following Best concentrations. However, Incorporated Management Practices, which are recommended by BAAQMD and best management practices are required of all projects: are necessary during 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, demolition, trenching, and graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times grading activities to avoid per day. generation of dust that 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off - may affect nearby sensitive site shall be covered. receptors 3. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. Less -than- City of Dublin During construction significant Dougherty Road Improvements Project 1 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 Biological Resources The project would have potentially significant impacts to the following animal species because of physical observation or the presence of suitable habitat: • California Red - legged Frog • California Tiger Salamander • Western Pond Turtle • Burrowing Owl • Tricolored Blackbird • California Horned Lark • White - tailed Kite • Nesting Birds • American Badger • San Joaquin Kit Fox Potentially Mitigation Measure 13I0-1: Biological Training and Best Practices Less -than- Significant Unless significant Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct Mitigation an environmental training session (Worker's Environmental Incorporated Awareness Program) for all construction personnel. The training shall include a description of the listed species with potential to occur on the project study area, a report of the occurrence of the species on the project study area, their habitats, an explanation of the status of the species and their protection under the Endangered Species Act, and the avoidance and minimization measures that are being implemented to reduce impacts to the species on -site. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for all personnel associated with the project and for anyone else who may enter the site. On completion of training, employees shall sign a form stating that they attended the training and understand all the conservation and protective measures. • During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed from the site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris from the site shall be removed. • All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet (30.5 meters) from any riparian habitat, water body, or drainage feature. The construction contractor shall ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. • Prior to the start of construction, the construction contractor shall prepare a plan to ensure a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. City of Dublin Pre - construction, during construction Dougherty Road Improvements Project 2 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 Best management practice (BMP) erosion control measures shall be implemented to reduce sedimentation in wetland habitat occupied by covered animal and plant species when activities are the source of potential erosion problems. Plastic mono - filament netting or similar material for erosion control shall not be permitted. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackified hydroseeding compounds. Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: • A qualified biologist shall conduct a visual encounter survey for California red - legged frogs at the work sites two weeks before the onset of activities and again immediately prior to commencing ground- disturbing activities. • An environmentally sensitive area (ESA) and exclusion zone shall be established around the freshwater marsh on -site by a qualified biologist. The ESA and exclusion zone shall be fenced with erosion control fencing (in a manner consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO -1) and marked with high visibility fencing. The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site and the aquatic feature (wet or dry). • As the work site is within the typical dispersal distance of potential breeding habitat, barrier fencing shall be constructed around the worksite to prevent amphibians from entering the work area. Barrier fencing shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of work. • A qualified biologist shall be present for initial ground- disturbing activities. The biologist shall have authority to stop any work that may result in impacts to CRLF. If the biologist exercises this authority, the USFWS and the CDFW will be notified by telephone and electronic mail within 2 working days. Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction, significant during construction Dougherty Road Improvements Project 3 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 If CRLF are encountered in the project area, work within the immediate vicinity shall cease immediately and the City shall engage a qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or is Service - approved under an active biological opinion. Based on the professional judgment of the biologist, if project activities can be conducted without harming or injuring the CRLF, the individual(s) shall be left at the location of discovery and monitored by the biologist. All project personnel shall be notified of the finding and at no time shall work occur within the vicinity of the listed species without a biological monitor present. If it is determined by the biologist that relocating the CRLF is necessary, the USFWS will be contacted to consult regarding translocation outside of the project area. • No monofilament plastic shall be used for erosion control. • The construction contractor shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion during and after project implementation. • Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches each morning and evening of construction for any trapped CRLF. • Work shall be avoided within suitable habitat areas from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1 inch or greater) to May 1. Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction, significant during construction Pre - Construction Activities • Prior to the initiation of construction, the City shall obtain an incidental take permit (ITP) from the CDFW. Any additional conditions set forth in the ITP to avoid or minimize impacts to CTS shall be incorporated into the project. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey in the immediate area of construction and where equipment will be located and construction activities will occur. Pre - construction survey methodology will conform to that specified in the above- Dougherty Road Improvements Project 4 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 referenced ITP. • An environmentally sensitive area (ESA) and exclusion zone shall be established around the freshwater march on -site by a qualified biologist. The ESA and exclusion zone shall be fenced with erosion control fencing (in a manner consistent with Mitigation Measure 13I0-1) and marked with high visibility fencing. The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site the aquatic feature (wet or dry). Prior to initiating project construction activities, the City shall install temporary exclusion fencing between the project area and habitat in Camp Parks. The City shall coordinate with Camp Parks to install permanent exclusion fencing on the existing fence between Camp Parks and Dougherty Road, as feasible. Permanent exclusion fencing would be installed at the completion of construction activities, or temporary exclusion fencing would be made permanent. Activities During Construction A qualified biologist shall be present for initial ground- disturbing activities. The biologist shall have the authority to stop any work that may result in impacts to CTS. If the biologist exercises this authority, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be notified by telephone and electronic mail within 2 working days. • If CTS are encountered in the project area, work within the immediate vicinity shall cease immediately and the City shall engage a qualified biologist to determine if project activities can be conducted without harming or injuring the CTS, in which case the individual(s) shall be left at the location of discovery and monitored by the biologist. All project personnel shall be notified of the finding and at no time will work occur within the vicinity of the listed species without a biological monitor present. USFWS and CDFW shall be notified and determination shall be made as to Dougherty Road Improvements Project 5 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 the method of relocation, if necessary. At no time shall CTS be handled without an ITP from CDFW. • No monofilament plastic shall be used for erosion control. • Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches each morning and evening of construction for trapped CTS. • To control erosion during and after project implementation, the construction contractor will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).1 • Work will be avoided within suitable habitat during the rainy season as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS 2010), from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1 inch or greater) to May 1, or as otherwise determined in the ITP. Mitigation Measure 113I0-4: Prior to construction within the pond Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction, and in the 325 -foot buffer, conduct a visual survey for turtle and /or significant during construction nests (eggs). Avoid active nests or turtles by means of installation of an exclusion fence between the freshwater marsh and the work area or by establishing a buffer of limited construction activity during construction to avoid impacts to identified nests. Mitigation Measure 113I0-5: The City will implement measures Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction, outlined in the CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation significant during construction (CDFW 2012), along with informal consultation with CDFW, to determine potential effects of the proposed project and the required mitigation. As a habitat assessment has identified potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat within the project site (GANDA 2012), prior to project initiation occupancy surveys — as defined in CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) — shall be conducted by a qualified 1 As discussed in section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, Best Management Practices are included in the City of Dublin's NPDES permit. Dougherty Road Improvements Project 6 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 biologist. If burrowing owls are found to occupy burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, avoidance and minimization measures will be determined in consultation with CDFW and may include: • An impact assessment by a qualified biologist to determine all factors that could affect burrowing owls, including type and extent of disturbance, duration and timing of impact, visibility and sensitivity, environmental factors, significance of impacts, cumulative effects, and mitigation goals. • A burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan, based on the results of the impact assessment, in consultation with and subject to review and approval by CDFW. • Pre - construction surveys by a qualified biologist of areas within 150 meters (about 492 feet) of the project study area to begin no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities to avoid "take" of burrowing owls and their nests. Pre - construction survey results should be submitted to CDFW for review and approval. • Monitoring by a qualified biologist during site disturbance to prevent impacts to burrowing owls identified during pre - construction surveys. • Establishing buffer zones, visual screens, or other measures during project activities to minimize disturbance impacts to nesting sites. Limits of buffers zone must be clearly marked with signs, flagging, or fencing. Appropriate buffer zones would be determined in consultation with CDFW. Restricted activity dates and buffer zones recommended in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) include: Dougherty Road Improvements Project 7 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 Time of Year Level of Disturbance Low Medium High April 1 -Aug 15 200 meters (about 656 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) Aug 16 -Oct 15 200 meters (about 656 feet) 200 meters (about 656 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) Oct 16 -Mar 31 50 meters (about 164 feet) 100 meters (about 328 feet) 500 meters (about 1640 feet) Source: CDFW, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012 Compensatory mitigation through the purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank, based on habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owls impacted, in areas where buffer zones are not practicable -- particularly due to access restrictions associated with the proximity of PRFTA — for temporary and /or permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, and /or burrowing owl habitat. Mitigation would be determined in consultation with CDFW. Burrow exclusion, during the non - breeding season to permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows, for areas that may be permanently impacted by the proposed project. Burrow exclusion and /or closure would be conducted under a CDFW burrowing owl exclusion plan. Site surveillance by a qualified biologist during project activities to detect burrowing owls that attempt to colonize or re- colonize an area that will be impacted. Restoration of temporary habitat impacts within the proposed project area to pre - project conditions. Dougherty Road Improvements Project 8 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 Mitigation Measure BIO -6: To the extent feasible, carry out project construction activities such as tree removal and /or tree trimming, excavation, grading, and the operation of heavy equipment between September 1 and January 31, outside of the nesting season, to avoid or minimize potential impacts to nesting birds. If project construction activities must occur during the nesting season (from February 1 to August 31) a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for nesting birds. During the surveys, the qualified biologist shall carefully search for active nests /burrows within the work zone and a surrounding buffer zone. If an active nest is found during the pre- construction survey, the bird species shall be identified and the approximate distance from the closest work site to the nest shall be estimated. Appropriate buffer distances shall be established by a qualified biologist. If active nests are closer than the appropriate buffer distance to the nearest work site then the active nest(s) shall be monitored for signs of disturbance. Disturbance of active nests shall be avoided until it is determined that nesting is complete and the young have fledged. Mitigation Measure BIO -7: • Conduct pre- construction surveys for suitable dens /burrows prior to any ground- disturbing activities. • All suitable burrows shall be flagged by a qualified biologist and avoided by crews; if avoidance is not feasible, consultation with California Department of Fish and Game should occur. • Avoidance measures may include designation of an exclusion zone around potential dens during the breeding period (summer through early fall) and hand excavation of dens during the non - breeding period. • A qualified biologist shall be present during construction to monitor any activities within 100 feet of an occupied den. Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction, significant during construction Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction, significant during construction Dougherty Road Improvements Project 9 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 • In addition, the standard recommendations for avoidance and minimization measures for San Joaquin kit fox are also applicable to American badger (Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). Mitigation Measure 13I0-8: Conduct pre- construction surveys no less Less -than- than fourteen days and no more than thirty days prior to the significant beginning of ground- disturbance and /or construction activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys shall identify kit fox habitat features on the project study area and evaluate use by kit fox and, if possible, assess the potential impacts to the kit fox by the proposed activity. If a natal /pupping den is discovered within the project study area or within 200 feet of the project boundary, the USFWS must be notified immediately. • Exclusion zones around any identified kit fox dens must have radii measured outward from the entrance. The following are minimums; if they cannot be met USFWS must be contacted. • Potential den — 50 feet • Known den — 100 feet • Natal /pupping den (occupied and unoccupied) — Contact USFWS. o Atypical den — 50 feet Project - related vehicles must observe a 20 -mph speed limit throughout the project study area, except on county or city roads and state or federal highways. Prohibit off -road traffic outside of designated project. A qualified biologist shall be on -site or on -call during all construction activities that could impact San Joaquin kit fox. If a kit fox is observed in the work area, the USFWS- approved biologist shall have the authority to stop work within 100 feet until the kit fox leaves the area on its own volition. Kit foxes are attracted to den -like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipe becoming trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches (in.) or greater that are stored at a construction site for one (1) or more overnieht City of Dublin Pre - construction, during construction Dougherty Road Improvements Project 10 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. Cultural Resources The project could Potentially Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Prior to beginning project - related potentially cause a Significant construction activities, the Camp Parks entrance sign shall be substantial adverse change Unless removed from its original location and relocated in a setting in the significance the Mitigation compatible with the original character and use of the entrance sign. Camp Parks entrance sign, Incorporated The entrance sign's new location shall allow the sign to retain its which is a historical historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general resource as defined in environment. Section 15064.5 Any one of the three options identified below would allow the entrance sign to retain its eligibility for listing on the federal and state register of historic resources: Option 1: Relocate the Camp Parks entrance sign to outside the project site and closer to Adams Avenue and 5th Street on the Camp Parks property, 30 to 60 meters (about 98 to 196 feet) east of its current location. The sign shall be reinstalled in its original orientation facing Dougherty Road. Option 2: Relocate the sign to an appropriate new permanent location within the current or former boundaries of Camp Parks. This new location would be selected through negotiations between the City of Dublin, the U.S. Army, and any other responsible or involved parties or entities. Option 3: Incorporate the sign into the planning of the future development on Camp Parks lands. This option would require temporary storage of the sign under stewardship of the City of Dublin, the U.S. Army, or an appropriate non - profit historic Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction significant Dougherty Road Improvements Project 11 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 preservation organization, such as the Dublin Historical Preservation Association, until it can be incorporated into future development on Camp Parks as outlined in Option 2 above. Whichever option is implemented, all activity related to the relocation and storage of the entrance sign shall conform to the standards outlined in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995). CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3) indicate that, "generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource." The project could Potentially Mitigation Measure CUL -2: In the event that unrecorded Less -than- City of Dublin During construction potentially cause a Significant archaeological resources are encountered during any phase of significant substantial adverse change unless project construction, the project contractor shall temporarily halt in the significance of an Mitigation construction and /or grading activities within 25 feet of any find until archaeological resource, Incorporated a qualified archaeologist meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61 can pursuant to Section assess the significance of the find and provide proper management 15064.5 and recommendations. A qualified archaeological monitor shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. Prehistoric cultural materials include but are not limited to midden deposits, hearth remains, stone and /or shell artifacts, and /or burials. Historic material, including but not limited to whole or fragmentary ceramic, glass or metal objects, wood, nails, brick, or other materials may occur within the project site in deposits such as old privies, dumps, or as part of earlier fill. While prehistoric or historic cultural resources would ideally be Dougherty Road Improvements Project 12 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 avoided, if any such resources could not feasibly be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance in consultation with the City of Dublin. If the resources are found to be ineligible for any historic register, impacts to such resources would not be considered significant and avoidance would thus not be necessary. If the resources are found to be eligible to the CRHR, they shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which require development and implementation of a data recovery plan that would include recommendations for the treatment of the discovered archaeological materials. The data recovery plan will be submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval. Upon approval and completion of the data recovery program, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume, and the archaeologist will prepare a report documenting the methods and findings. The report will be submitted to the City of Dublin. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin, a copy of the report will be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). After any appropriate resource recovery and /or mitigation measures are completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume. Mitigation Measure CUL -3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction the City of Dublin shall require that the project contractor provide significant documentation that all construction crews that will work on the project have undergone a training session to inform them of the potential for previously undiscovered archaeological resources within the project site, of the laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, and of the procedures to follow should they discover cultural resources during project - related work. The project could Potentially Mitigation Measure CUL -4: In the event that paleontological Less -than- City of Dublin During construction Dougherty Road Improvements Project 13 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 mmll.�. potentially directly or Significant resources are encountered during anv chase of oroiect construction. significant indirectly destroy a unique Unless all soil- disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be paleontological resource, Mitigation temporarily halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the site, or unique geologic Incorporated significance of the find and provide proper management features. recommendations. The City shall incorporate all feasible recommendations into the project. The project could Potentially Mitigation Measure CUL -5: Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health Less -than- potentially disturb human Significant and Safety code shall be implemented in the event that human significant remains, including those Unless remains, or possible human remains, are located during project - interred outside of formal Mitigation related construction excavation. If human remains are discovered cemeteries. Incorporated within the project site during construction, all work shall be stopped within 25 feet of the discovery and the contractor shall immediately notify the Alameda County Coroner. At the same time, a qualified archaeologist meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61 shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within twenty -four hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MILD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the background to the finds, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MILD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Dublin, the County of Alameda, and the Northwest Information Center. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the agencies identified above, and any appropriate treatment completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume. City of Dublin During construction Dougherty Road Improvements Project 14 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013 Geology & Soils The project may traverse Potentially Mitigation Measure GEO -1: A qualified geotechnical engineer shall Less -than- City of Dublin Design soils with high plasticity Significant identify appropriate pavement types for project site soil conditions. significant and relatively low Unless The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer shall be resistivity values. Mitigation incorporated into final design plans. Incorporated Hazards & Hazardous Materials The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Phase II site investigation shall be conducted to sample the soils on the project site to ascertain the extent of potential environmental impairments and to establish appropriate protocols for the collection and safe disposal of any contaminated soils and /or groundwater. All recommended remediation, soil material management, and /or disposal protocols of the Phase II investigation shall be conditions of project approval. Mitigation Measure HAZ -2: To avoid or minimize conflicts with the existing Kinder Morgan Energy petroleum pipeline, contractors and the City of Dublin shall coordinate closely with Kinder Morgan Energy in the development of final design plans. Project contractors shall notify Kinder Morgan Energy in advance of any planned excavation at or near the petroleum pipeline. If necessary, the City shall encase /protect pipelines to minimize any possible conflict. Less -than- City of Dublin Pre - construction significant Less -than- City of Dublin During construction significant Dougherty Road Improvements Project 15 City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2013